Defensive game plan for stopping third down running silliness. [Archive]

View Full Version : Defensive game plan for stopping third down running silliness.

Ben E Lou

04-04-2012, 05:18 AM

For those still struggling when playing against this sort of silliness...

Outer Banks: Single-Back formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-8-ASH25 (2Q: 08:01) Hugh McClain ran around right end for 14 yards. Tackled by DE Kendrick Battle, assisted by CB Horace Flynn. Key block delivered by Seth Robert.

Outer Banks: I formation with two tight ends, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-3-ASH04 (2Q: 06:44) Hugh McClain ran outside the right tackle for 3 yards. Tackled by DT Lamar Buckley. Key block delivered by John Dexter.

Outer Banks: Goal-Line formation with three tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 3-deep zone coverage, expecting the pass.
3-6-ASH06 (2Q: 05:14) Hugh McClain ran around right end for 6 yards and a TOUCHDOWN! Key block delivered by Seth Robert. Outer Banks 13, Asheville 7

...this might help:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/defense_against_rkgs_latest_foolishness.fdp

Hammer

04-04-2012, 02:34 PM

Most people never throw deep on 3rd 1-5. Obviously if they do, make adjustments. But it makes sense to me to roll exlusively with 1 deep if your going against the sneaky running types. Granted it takes a bit of working into the gameplan, but it tends to work a treat.

From my experience aggressive run and 1 deep tends to stuff the run pretty good. Where as beating the short pass with any given defense is pretty much a lottery. If there running even 40%, provided they are not going deep, to me it makes sense to go after the run extremely aggressively on 3rd down. Even when you do its suprising how many short passes get batted down.

As you get into the 3rd 6-7 range play close attention to the long passing percentages. Provided its not too high a 2 deep BnR defense would seem to be the right choice.

Gets a bit tricky on 3rd and 8+ By and large a nickel, 3 deep, normal pass would be what I would go with. But it depends very much on the team.

I always try to know what defense I'm running in a given situation. Know how many deep I will have at least. Maybe I'm just a control freak lol.

aston217

04-06-2012, 09:11 AM

Hm, 50-45-5 with 25% 3-deep zone? I'm probably missing something, that seems risky if anyone catches on to you doing it. Passing the crap out of that 3rd-and-10 situation could result in nice conversions, and big plays. On the other hand, go 0/0/0/100, and you may give up some big runs, but it still won't be a guaranteed or even high percentage conversion.

To counter an especially threatening RB, wouldn't such heavy compensation just play into their hands? I'd rather give up 8, 9, 14 yard runs than risk 20-yard passes.

Ben E Lou

04-06-2012, 09:13 AM

Hm, 50-45-5 with 25% 3-deep zone? I'm probably missing something, that seems risky if anyone catches on to you doing it. Passing the crap out of that 3rd-and-10 situation could result in nice conversions, and big plays. On the other hand, go 0/0/0/100, and you may give up some big runs, but it still won't be a guaranteed or even high percentage conversion.This is for use against the people that like to run 50-100% on 3rd and long. Going 0-0-0-100 there is the wrong move.

Firefly

04-06-2012, 11:40 AM

This is for use against the people that like to run 50-100% on 3rd and long. Going 0-0-0-100 there is the wrong move.

Ohhh... that explains the aggressive pass on second down. They'd be the same teams that pass 80-100% of the time in first and second down, right?

Not necessarily, I imagine, but I've played one of those guys twice a year for ages -now in two leagues. Your gameplan would work like a charm, but I refuse to give in. I'm afraid that if I use something similar then next time he'll go with the opposite game plan (run 80-100% on first and second, then pass on third). He already did once.

I refuse to turn our rivalry into a game of chicken. And since I win most of the time, well... :D

Solecismic

04-06-2012, 03:03 PM

I took a look at this issue a while back (no, I'm not planning anything in the near future) and it's without a doubt the biggest challenge in designing an engine - how to balance the "playing chicken" silliness against allowing the defensive game plan to have an effect on the outcome of the game.

If I were to wave a magic wand and get a wish, I would wish for a two-hour dedicated interview with a top NFL defensive coordinator to discuss exactly this issue.

But yes, I realize "silliness" is the appropriate way to describe this issue, and it's something I can control in the engine - the question is exactly how much to control - probably a little overboard in the game-plan controls it department right now.

gstelmack

04-06-2012, 03:16 PM

Honestly, part of the way to fix it is to redo gameplanning, especially regarding formations and defensive personnel. It's all keyed off what you expect the offense to do, with no ability to cue off what the offense may actually be doing.

Right now the offense can come out in a strong I with two tightends while the defense is in a 4-deep dime zone coverage just because the defense is in "extremely expect them to pass". There is very little ability to match a defensive personnel package to the offensive one in FOF. This is how we end up with things like "4-deep zone aggressively expecting the run".

Solecismic

04-06-2012, 03:25 PM

Ben E Lou

04-06-2012, 03:45 PM

Yes, that's a big piece of how the pros do it - they match personnel. If it ever gets made, there's a whole new game-planning module designed for a future FOF.

The tougher piece is what to do when, for example, you start seeing a lot of draw plays out of a 113 (14 these days) package. In real football, you see a couple, and the coordinator starts telling the middle linebacker to stay home a little longer.

How do you model that in a computer game without exposing more flaws?Right. Personnel wouldn't cover all of it. I think a big piece of it lies in simply not allowing wholly unrealistic game plans. The team posted above is one of the more extreme examples. Over the last 2+ seasons, they have called plays as follows...

0% runs on 2nd and 1
0% runs on 2nd and 2
4.9% runs on 2nd and 3
18.4% runs on 2nd and 4-5
84.5% runs on 3rd and 8-10
96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+And those unexpected plays are more successful than the passes/runs that the defenses are expecting, in some cases by wide margins. Even those 3rd and 8-10 runs are averaging 7.34 yards per carry, and converting the first down 40.0% of the time. 3rd and 8-10 passes only convert the first down 28.2% of the time league-wide. It's...yeah...silly.

If you were to ever patch the current game again, I'd just limit what people are able to do there. Give us enough room to be creative, but no one thinking rationally about it would have a problem if you limited all 1st and 2nd down plays to something like a 30-70% run range (maybe 10-60 on 1st/2nd and very long). On 3rd and, say, 4 or less, maybe 20-80%, and then maybe 0-30% on 3rd and long. It would create more realism in game plans, and pretty much eliminate the game of chicken that Firefly refers to.

RomaGoth

04-06-2012, 04:21 PM

If it ever gets made, there's a whole new game-planning module designed for a future FOF.

:popcorn:

Chubby

04-06-2012, 06:10 PM

Right. Personnel wouldn't cover all of it. I think a big piece of it lies in simply not allowing wholly unrealistic game plans. The team posted above is one of the more extreme examples. Over the last 2+ seasons, they have called plays as follows...

0% runs on 2nd and 1
0% runs on 2nd and 2
4.9% runs on 2nd and 3
18.4% runs on 2nd and 4-5
84.5% runs on 3rd and 8-10
96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+And those unexpected plays are more successful than the passes/runs that the defenses are expecting, in some cases by wide margins. Even those 3rd and 8-10 runs are averaging 7.34 yards per carry, and converting the first down 40.0% of the time. 3rd and 8-10 passes only convert the first down 28.2% of the time league-wide. It's...yeah...silly.

If you were to ever patch the current game again, I'd just limit what people are able to do there. Give us enough room to be creative, but no one thinking rationally about it would have a problem if you limited all 1st and 2nd down plays to something like a 30-70% run range (maybe 10-60 on 1st/2nd and very long). On 3rd and, say, 4 or less, maybe 20-80%, and then maybe 0-30% on 3rd and long. It would create more realism in game plans, and pretty much eliminate the game of chicken that Firefly refers to.

I'd prefer limiting the gains on those plays than putting caps on what you can set in your gameplan

MRL17

04-06-2012, 06:24 PM

Seems like the "familiarity" messages ought to be kicking in when an offense is doing something 80-100% of the time in some situation.

aston217

04-06-2012, 06:57 PM

I had thought something like that -- being able to automatically adjust for clear gameplan signs as a game went on -- would be a good idea, but to what extent? To the point that it doesn't really matter what kind of skewed gameplan you throw out there, the game self-corrects to the middle? If that's the case, what's the point of gameplanning?

I think the chicken games are silly but not *that* unrealistic -- just the results. But having those calls to make puts you in the coach's chair. Generally speaking the best idea is to just do what you do. There's little sense in throwing a disastrous feint all year just to spring a trap for one game. On the other hand, there should be times when you think, "I can really catch a team off guard if I do this."

I'd prefer limiting the gains on those plays than putting caps on what you can set in your gameplan

I don't like the idea of actual caps -- who is to say you can't bust a big run on 3rd-and-long? -- but I think this one is on the right track. Reduce the overall effectiveness of such plays in given down-and-distance situations. Or maybe even just overall.

There's nothing too wrong with giving the coach the ability to run the ball 100% of the time on third down if he so chooses. It's just that those dime pass aggressives aren't prevent defenses, but the game treats them as such or maybe even worse.

Solecismic

04-06-2012, 10:59 PM

That's exactly what the engine does right now. Familiarity is a scale - you don't see the message until you're fairly far down that road. But the threshold could be higher in these specific instances.

For those of you who were around for earlier versions of the game, there were harder limits on game plans for precisely this reason at one time. I felt the consensus at the time was that those limits were too artificial.

There's a right way to handle this, and I think wholesale changes to how game planning is done is better than trying to patch it. I can't promise if or when, or even that it will be done if there's another version of the game, but it's on my radar.

stevew

04-06-2012, 11:35 PM

MIJB#19

04-07-2012, 06:20 AM

I'm honestly surprised this is even an issue. People should be able to game plan the way they feel their team can cope best with situations. Even then, the supposeldy offender has struggling teams that are quite simply not racking up bowl wins after another. To me it's equally silly to run on 'passing downs' as to throw a lot on 'running downs'.

The usage of 0% or 100% should be reflected by that happening and shouldn't be an automatic punishment. During the game the defense should get familiar with it and alter the expectations based on the number of plays that have been ran in the game and the initial expectations should be based on the number of times the opponent has ran that game plan earlier in the season.

Let the 'defensive coordinator' decide what the expectations should be, don't put that number crunching on the 'gm'.

Nemesis

04-07-2012, 06:58 AM

There's a right way to handle this, and I think wholesale changes to how game planning is done is better than trying to patch it. I can't promise if or when, or even that it will be done if there's another version of the game, but it's on my radar.
I personally would prefer an option that makes people aware of this stuff as opposed to putting a limit on it. Gameplan Analyzer does that for me, I'm not sure why people don't use it more.

RedKingGold

04-07-2012, 10:27 AM

Not that these are common situations...

96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+

But isn't that the basic NFL play a pretty high % of the time? The run shouldn't be super effective to the point of garnering a first down. But unless it's a late game situation, running in order to get a better punt seems to be a play.

FWIW, that's my reasoning behind doing it (yes, I'm the offending team in Ben's post above).

For a pass on third-and-long, most of the potential outcomes are bad: (1) complete pass for first down; (2) complete pass for a non-first down; (3) incomplete pass; (4) interception; (5) sack; (6) sack and fumble; or (7) penalty. For a run on third-and-long, you have most of the same outcomes (substitute run for first down for complete pass for first down, rinse and repeat), however, you avoid the "sack and fumble" and "interception" outcomes which can be game changing plays.

When I run on third-down, it's to mitigate a potential bad outcome rather than to try and get a first down. This is why I've always said that, even if teams go aggressive run on third-down, I will probably still run on third-and-long because it's the most conservative play.

I'd rather save my passes for situations where a complete pass is the most likely outcome, then have to throw into a pass aggressive defense where the aforementioned negative outcomes are substantially more likely to occur. Conversely, if I had a stud QB, then I'd be more likely to pass on third-and-long because there'd be a less likely chance that the aforementioned negative outcomes occur.

gstelmack

04-07-2012, 10:44 AM

Right. Personnel wouldn't cover all of it. I think a big piece of it lies in simply not allowing wholly unrealistic game plans.

I think I've mentioned this before, but for a GM sim I think you'd be okay with something like a run/pass slider and an aggressive/passive slider. Maybe some base personnel bits: are you a 4-3 vs 3-4 defense, do you like to run a standard offense or a single-back offense, 2 TEs vs no TEs? It just tilts the standard offense / defense a bit.

But that doesn't support the "I want to call all my own plays crowd", who can still break the engine just by making the calls, so I'm not sure here.

Ben E Lou

04-07-2012, 11:24 AM

I'd rather save my passes for situations where a complete pass is the most likely outcome, then have to throw into a pass aggressive defense where the aforementioned negative outcomes are substantially more likely to occur....which points out the flaw in the system as it is. That logic is fine for 3rd and 20, but when the game incents that behavior on 3rd and 8-10, it's a problem. (And it doesn't help that it works much better than it should.)

As far as the "don't limit" thinking, the problem here is the one I mentioned here years ago (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=58315): we're not calling the games one play at a time. It would be an entirely different thing if we were. However, there's a "computer abstraction" element at work here that causes a meta-game that has nothing to do football strategy to develop. That is what would be basically eliminated by limiting entries--which, Jim, is very different from what you're referring to from years back where you were allowed to enter anything but the game would punish you for entering values it deemed unacceptable. A front-end limitation would work much better. My primary concern about a revamp is that I can't help but suspect that any other wholesale change that addresses this issue would take reasonable control out of the hands of the user.

RedKingGold

04-07-2012, 11:33 AM

...which points out the flaw in the system as it is. That logic is fine for 3rd and 20, but when the game incents that behavior on 3rd and 8-10, it's a problem. (And it doesn't help that it works much better than it should.)

I'll agree with that there is a flaw in that running on third-and-long should not work as well as it does, however, I don't agree that the analysis substantially changes between 3rd-and-20 and 3rd-and-8 through 10.

Ben E Lou

04-07-2012, 11:36 AM

I think I've mentioned this before, but for a GM sim I think you'd be okay with something like a run/pass slider and an aggressive/passive slider. Maybe some base personnel bits: are you a 4-3 vs 3-4 defense, do you like to run a standard offense or a single-back offense, 2 TEs vs no TEs? It just tilts the standard offense / defense a bit.

But that doesn't support the "I want to call all my own plays crowd", who can still break the engine just by making the calls, so I'm not sure here.I've highlighted the key phrase above. I agree with what you're saying in principle, but FOF moved past being just a GM sim maybe a decade ago--8 1/2 years ago at the very least. (FOF2K4, released Fall 2003, wasn't a GM sim by any means.) Yeah, I know the name still indicates that, but soooooooooooooooo many coaching and scouting elements have been introduced and embraced over the years that moving back to a "GM Sim" would likely turn off a fair-number of long-time users. ("How dare you release a version that takes features AWAY from us????!!!") Heck, just look at this very thread: I mention the idea of limiting the options in a way that would have zero impact on probably 85-95% of game plan boxes as they're currently used by the community as a whole, and it's met with resistance all around. A move to sliders, or likely anything else that people perceive as limiting control, would very likely catch far more backlash.

Ben E Lou

04-07-2012, 11:40 AM

I'll agree with that there is a flaw in that running on third-and-long should not work as well as it does, however, I don't agree that the analysis substantially changes between 3rd-and-20 and 3rd-and-8 through 10.Sure it does. Is there ANY NFL team in the last, oh, 30 years, that has run the ball ~85% of the time on 3rd and 8-10? Of course not. Why? Because the possible ill effects of passing aren't as bad in the NFL as you perceive them to be in FOF.

RedKingGold

04-07-2012, 11:47 AM

Sure it does. Is there ANY NFL team in the last, oh, 30 years, that has run the ball ~85% of the time on 3rd and 8-10? Of course not. Why? Because the possible ill effects of passing aren't as bad in the NFL as you perceive them to be in FOF.

Well, we all know NFL logic takes you only so far in FOF. Running on third down is a way to minimize risk in a system where we can't call our own plays.

Ben E Lou

04-07-2012, 11:57 AM

Well, we all know NFL logic takes you only so far in FOF. Running on third down is a way to minimize risk in a system where we can't call our own plays.Well sure. I'm talking about the ideal here. I think pretty much everyone's ideal is a game where--as often as possible--"football logic" is also the strategy most likely to win games. The closer you get to that ideal, the less issues you have between "playing it like a computer game" vs. "playing it like a football sim," because the two approaches lead to the same decisions the vast majority of the time.

RedKingGold

04-07-2012, 11:59 AM

See? We can agree on stuff!

RedKingGold

04-07-2012, 12:00 PM

BTW, easily the best part of this thread is Jim's posts and have the hope that, maybe, somewhere down the road, we might possibly get a new version of FOF.

Dutch

04-07-2012, 12:22 PM

Another NFL-logic part that's missing is that NFL teams generally can't just switch from a Power Run Attack to a High Flying Air McNair Circus Act overnight....there should be some controls set at the beginning of the season where the team philosophy is established.

I'd go so far as to suggest that the current GP'ing optoins would only be available during pre-season but once the regular season starts, you get some slider options to tweak....but that's it. Set yourself up as a team that throws deep 95% of the time on 3-5....with only the ability to adjust 10 or 20 % in either direction with a slider....my Defensive GP is going to more easily adjust to that trend.

As for Defensive GP'ing...it could be left completely as it is. We could adjust our defenses to better defend against outlier %'s that an owner has committed himself too (for the most part). In the current setup, if an owner is tweaking his exploits from game to game....if I follow suit, I'm asking for trouble...I'm almost forced to not adjust at all, which is broken, of course.

sidthelid

04-07-2012, 01:09 PM

My view on running on anything between 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 7 is this. I would think that the game is set to have an average run of say 4 ypc before dice etc are added to the play. So if I have an above average running game and with it being 3rd down the defense is more likely to be in pass, then there is an excellent chance that 4 yard run is likely to be 5 or 6 or higher giving me a good chance of a 1st down. Running is also normally a safer option on 3rd down as Redkingold said.

I would also suggest people don't use MP/LP much on 3rd down until its 3rd and 6 to 7 or more. So perhaps putting nine in the box on third down could mean that the 3rd down running play has a higher percentage of being stuffed, meaning running on third becomes a lot more risky play.

You could also maybe build in the ability for the defense to audible (something like madden does). So for instance on 3<sup>rd</sup> down plays the defensive GM has the option to match up formations. This could be achieved by letting the defensive GM put in a percentage for how often he wants to match the offense's formation on 3rd down plays. This would help stop 3rd down plays where we see the offense in a 2TE set and the defense is in dime.

As for sliders that is just way to basic and a backward step in my view.

Dutch

04-07-2012, 02:16 PM

As for sliders that is just way to basic and a backward step in my view.

Do you mean the mere adding of them as I suggested or do you mean replacing the GP'ing feature wth them? If it's the later, I totally agree. The suggestion I just made wasn't intended to replace gameplanning.

Nemesis

04-07-2012, 02:28 PM

sidthelid

04-07-2012, 02:33 PM

What i am suggesting is to add a box for defense to 3rd down plays. In that box you can as the Defensive Cordinator enter a number between 1 and 100. If you put 100 you will always match up formation with the offense, if you put in 50 then you have a 50% chance of matching up the to the offensive formation and so on. This would be an addition to what we already have.

Ben E Lou

04-07-2012, 03:10 PM

When I mention that I don't want limits, I mean that I don't want limits on what we can call. If someone wants to do 85% running on 3rd down, so be it. Effectiveness however is something that I'm ok with changing.

As per the example here:
3-6-ASH06
Outer Banks: Goal-Line formation with three tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 3-deep zone coverage, expecting the pass.

If the offense comes out in GoalLine, there's no way a logical thinking defense will come out in nickel personnel.But it's incredibly easy to just avoid the obvious run formations. Plenty of the plays in question are of this type:

Outer Banks: Single-Back formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-8-ASH25 (2Q: 08:01) Hugh McClain ran around right end for 14 yards. Tackled by DE Kendrick Battle, assisted by CB Horace Flynn. Key block delivered by Seth Robert.

Merely having the defense adjust more for offensive formations won't do it. Having played Fonzie a ton of times, who for a very long time has used roughly 50% running on pretty much all third down situations (except he throws a lot on 3rd and very short,) I can assure you that formations alone don't cause these plays to be more successful. On the play above, the only hint that OBX was going to run the ball is the fact that they've pretty much always run it in that situation for 2 seasons. There's nothing specific to that formation/situation that hints at it.

Solecismic

04-07-2012, 03:12 PM

Well sure. I'm talking about the ideal here. I think pretty much everyone's ideal is a game where--as often as possible--"football logic" is also the strategy most likely to win games. The closer you get to that ideal, the less issues you have between "playing it like a computer game" vs. "playing it like a football sim," because the two approaches lead to the same decisions the vast majority of the time.

That's a good philosophy. I know it upsets people, but you have to immerse yourselves in the concept that it's a football game. Games are all about imagination.

I can only help by providing as football-like an imaginary world as possible. Put yourself in the front office (and the coach's office).

When I watch my son play games, I'm disappointed that so many popular games out there control his experience so thoroughly - they're a lot like passively watching television. I refuse to get him video games (others do - he lives for anything Mario). To me, the best toys teach him to use his imagination.

Solecismic

04-07-2012, 03:29 PM

Ben, here's the problem I'm always trying to solve.

The data here is from a recent season, but not the last three seasons. I think it still applies today.

I looked at 4,304 third-down plays, 24% of which were running plays.

On 3rd-and-10, teams passed 87% of the time. They converted the first down 33% of the time.

On those 13% runs, they converted the first down 25% of the time.

So, let's say you have a system where the defense's expectations control, to a certain extent, the result of the play. What you can't do, and FOF doesn't, is simply plug in the average gain and move it up or down based on defensive expectations. Because you'd be running more than you'd pass.

The reason these 3rd-and-10 runs are so successful is because the defense is always expecting the pass. So every once in a while you throw a blocker at the one decent run-defense linebacker left on the field, and you let your running back take a shot at it. Possibly your goal is solely field position - every five yards counts.

So, in FOF, the 3rd-and-10 run might not work as well, but let's move down to 3rd-and-4. Teams are still only running 13% of the time, but now the real-NFL success percentage is 51% on run plays, and 50% for pass plays.

This is very, very hard to model properly. When I look at play results, I'm long past simple averages these days. It's all about context. And that's very difficult, and why I spend most of time focusing solely on first-and-ten plays.

The engine does need an overhaul, though. I know far more than is reflected in this version.

Solecismic

04-07-2012, 03:49 PM

Not that these are common situations...

96.3% runs on 3rd and 11-16
87.5% runs on 3rd and 17+

But isn't that the basic NFL play a pretty high % of the time? The run shouldn't be super effective to the point of garnering a first down. But unless it's a late game situation, running in order to get a better punt seems to be a play.

The percentage does go up on 3rd and 11-18 - to about 16%. And 26% on 3rd and 19 or more. Obviously for field position - teams were 2-for-92 converting 3rd-and-13 or more with a run (the success of passes was 16%).

But expectations are crucial in the NFL. The other factor (and this is not modeled as immediately in FOF) is that switching things up, play-to-play, makes a huge difference.

Defensive players are little like pillows with "memory" foam; they stick a little bit with what they just saw (I need to remember this analogy for possible future instruction manuals). The most illustrative numbers - and I don't have this spreadsheet at hand, but I did do a Football Frontier blogpost on it a while back - are looking at 2nd-and-10s.

Following an incomplete pass, 2nd-and-10 is a remarkably effective running down - and you see teams doing this a lot. But after a failed running play, 2nd-and-10 is not a frequent running down. The average runs are similar in distance gained, but maintaining a similar average, when you know that NFL coaches see this and are more prepared to see a run after an incomplete pass, tells me this goes a little beyond a coordinator simply calling a defensive play.

Nemesis

04-07-2012, 04:34 PM

The reason these 3rd-and-10 runs are so successful is because the defense is always expecting the pass. So every once in a while you throw a blocker at the one decent run-defense linebacker left on the field, and you let your running back take a shot at it. Possibly your goal is solely field position - every five yards counts.

Added to the effect (at least or me) is that I don't blitz AT ALL on 3rd down and long, ever. Add that to the 0/0/0/100 3rd and 10 defensive call, is a recipe for disaster vs the run.

aston217

04-08-2012, 03:05 AM

Can't express how happy I am that Jim is posting in this thread and taking part in some very good discussion. :)

TheFoosballWizard

04-08-2012, 01:13 PM

Can't express how happy I am that Jim is posting in this thread and taking part in some very good discussion. :)

+1 to that.

Chubby

04-08-2012, 07:58 PM

I've highlighted the key phrase above. I agree with what you're saying in principle, but FOF moved past being just a GM sim maybe a decade ago--8 1/2 years ago at the very least. (FOF2K4, released Fall 2003, wasn't a GM sim by any means.) Yeah, I know the name still indicates that, but soooooooooooooooo many coaching and scouting elements have been introduced and embraced over the years that moving back to a "GM Sim" would likely turn off a fair-number of long-time users. ("How dare you release a version that takes features AWAY from us????!!!") Heck, just look at this very thread: I mention the idea of limiting the options in a way that would have zero impact on probably 85-95% of game plan boxes as they're currently used by the community as a whole, and it's met with resistance all around. A move to sliders, or likely anything else that people perceive as limiting control, would very likely catch far more backlash.

There's a HUGE difference between moving towards a "I want to implement such and such system (3-4, pass heavy 4 WR base) that my coach calls the plays with no imput from myself" and "you can't go higher than 80% on X situation in your GP"

I'd be all for the system/coach model with no actual GPing done by myself. If we are using the current GP then yes, I want full range of what i can do (i.e. Jim should limit the effectiveness)

Kozure

04-09-2012, 09:29 AM

Another NFL-logic part that's missing is that NFL teams generally can't just switch from a Power Run Attack to a High Flying Air McNair Circus Act overnight....there should be some controls set at the beginning of the season where the team philosophy is established.

This is exactly the thing I've felt is missing from training camp. But it isn't impossible to switch philosophies mid-flight, but it is difficult and NFL teams fear doing it. Simply entering in a precamp gameplan then making it so the more you move away from that gameplan the more of an effectiveness (cohesion maybe) penalty you'd take.

Also, as for RKG's 3rd down running, I have no problem with it. It is his opponents responsibility to look at his tendencies and gameplan accordingly, which solves the issue. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

Autumn

04-09-2012, 11:09 AM

Ben E Lou

04-09-2012, 12:21 PM

Why it's an issue plays into my response to Chubby's last post. It's an issue because a significant number of people don't have the time/interest to pay attention at the level that Kozure is mentioning. Sure, if everyone ran Gameplan Analyzer before every game and acted on what they saw, it's a non-issue. In a perfect MP environment, no one gets away with anything "sneaky" week in and week out. But this is just the latest in a long line of stuff that people--myself included--have gotten away with primarily because lots of people aren't going to "scout" the opposition at that level, if at all. Ramping up passing in the red zone worked wonderfully prior to 6.3, when it was patched away, and you could see that people were doing that from within the game! There was no need to use a third-party utility to see that some teams were doing this big-time. If you just ramped up the pass defense in the red zone, you could shut it down easily, but that took looking in the game to see that people were doing it. As one who used to pass in the red zone a fair bit more than normal, I can assure you that the vast majority of my opponents in every league simply never noticed it.

...and that gets to Chubby's comment..
There's a HUGE difference between moving towards a "I want to implement such and such system (3-4, pass heavy 4 WR base) that my coach calls the plays with no imput from myself" and "you can't go higher than 80% on X situation in your GP"

I'd be all for the system/coach model with no actual GPing done by myself. If we are using the current GP then yes, I want full range of what i can do (i.e. Jim should limit the effectiveness)Here's the problem with not having limits: it adds yet another advantage to people like you and me, simply because a significant portion of the rest of the community (and pretty much 100% of the people who just want to sim football and not test the engine) assume that something like that wouldn't work because it doesn't work in real football. So the advantages of playing out on the margins end up only being available to those who enjoy testing the margins out. Most people never think to try the unintuitive nothing-to-do-with-football stuff that works (or has worked in the past) in this game such as using only 1 minute for special teams and formations in TC, or running 85-90% of the time on 3rd and 8, or ramping up passing in the red zone, or throwing the bomb on 2nd and 1 nearly every time, or overlaying pictures of bars before and after interviews, or using adjustments on every play, etc. etc. etc.

And I realize that you *think* that you and others would be ok with "system" game plans where you're not able to dictate what you do in various situations, but I suspect that once people see their team lose an important game because their "Smash Mouth/Conservative" coach happened to throw the bomb on 1st and 10 with a three-point lead midway through the fourth quarter and got intercepted, they'll be clamoring for those little boxes again. ("IF I HAD MY BOXES, I COULD HAVE PUT 'NEVER' FOR LONG PASSING IN THAT SITUATION!!!") ;)

Kozure

04-09-2012, 01:06 PM

As someone who's been burned by 3rd down running in MP, I can say that the "issue" is that it's just too effective. A team that runs consistently on 3rd and 9, even against pass defense, should not be as successful as they are. As I think Jim has said above, the success numbers are too high. Any of us who have faced this have had to tinker with our defensive gameplan to counter it, yes. But generally it should not be possible to convert third and 8 with a run 80% or 90% of the time, which is what I've seen, even against non-aggressive pass D. Running on that down should be a big gamble, and probably one that it's safe for the defense to ignore unless they're facing Eric Dickerson.

Yup, and I do not have a problem with it being high. Maybe I'm one of the few that have no problem with the game's imperfections, especially an imperfection that can be handled by simply gameplanning for it. I don't see the 80 to 90 percent success rate on third down and long as you do. I see if I gameplan for it, it becomes a non-factor.

It comes down to is how much do we want Jim to protect us from ourselves. I like the sandbox approach and the more he nerfs the game the less of a sandbox I get to play with. I wish the game was more like this. If a team is poorly prepared for a teams tendencies, a defense should be exploited. None of this, "hey, I have it set to play the run only 11 percent of the time but he is running it and gouging my defense every time. Waahh!! Waahh!!," bullcrap. :D

Maybe it's just that I don't like to complain.( yes MRL17, I don't like to complain despite popular belief.) I feel the game is fine though a little under-explained. Still have no idea how some aspects of the game work.

Kozure

04-09-2012, 01:19 PM

MRL17

04-09-2012, 01:22 PM

Yup, and I do not have a problem with it being high. Maybe I'm one of the few that have no problem with the game's imperfections, especially an imperfection that can be handled by simply gameplanning for it. I don't see the 80 to 90 percent success rate on third down and long as you do. I see if I gameplan for it, it becomes a non-factor.

It comes down to is how much do we want Jim to protect us from ourselves. I like the sandbox approach and the more he nerfs the game the less of a sandbox I get to play with. I wish the game was more like this. If a team is poorly prepared for a teams tendencies, a defense should be exploited. None of this, "hey, I have it set to play the run only 11 percent of the time but he is running it and gouging my defense every time. Waahh!! Waahh!!," bullcrap. :D

Maybe it's just that I don't like to complain.( yes MRL17, I don't like to complain despite popular belief.) I feel the game is fine though a little under-explained. Still have no idea how some aspects of the game work.

I disagree.

We got into this game because it's a football simulator, and while we all enjoy being rewarded with wins in the game for working the engine and paying attention, when it comes down to it, if things are happening in the game that aren't happening in real football then it's not a good simulation.

I'm all for fixing the issue and making the game as "real football intuitive" as possible.

Kozure

04-09-2012, 01:28 PM

For the record, I'm probably playing devils advocate in this. It really doesn't matter if it gets fixed, though a limit on how much or little you can do something isnt the anwser.

Kozure

04-09-2012, 01:33 PM

I disagree.

We got into this game because it's a football simulator, and while we all enjoy being rewarded with wins in the game for working the engine and paying attention, when it comes down to it, if things are happening in the game that aren't happening in real football then it's not a good simulation.

I'm all for fixing the issue and making the game as "real football intuitive" as possible.

Bah!! As a programmer you should know a sim cannot perfectly recreate real life. That's what I thought half of playing front office football was - adapting to its imperfections and moving on.

Ben E Lou

04-09-2012, 01:39 PM

As I said in my last post, it comes down to how much we want Jim to save us from ourselves.It's a fair question, and one that I landed on the exact opposite side of for some time. However, having seen the divide that can develop when things aren't documented and doing the unexpected yields greater rewards than it should, I'm now perfectly fine with some in-game limits. I'm not calling for wholesale changes, but it's silly that someone can go 1-1-98 on 2nd and short all season long (I've done that before) and just TORCH defenses nearly every time that situation comes up.

MRL17

04-09-2012, 01:46 PM

I'm not saying that every little thing should be fixed. I have lots of little gripes about the game (why can't I make my stud FB into a RB higher than 40 rated?!?) but now we're getting into territory where we don't resemble real football at all.

To be optimal now, everyone should be going after big play receivers far and away over everything else and running it 100% on third downs for maximum conversion rate. To me that's not football anymore, so we need some intervention.

Kozure

04-09-2012, 02:05 PM

It's a fair question, and one that I landed on the exact opposite side of for some time. However, having seen the divide that can develop when things aren't documented and doing the unexpected yields greater rewards than it should, I'm now perfectly fine with some in-game limits. I'm not calling for wholesale changes, but it's silly that someone can go 1-1-98 on 2nd and short all season long (I've done that before) and just TORCH defenses nearly every time that situation comes up.

Well, limiting control is where fof2004 went wrong. Instead of backtracking, perhaps Jim can add more scouting features that tell you more than what a teams starting roster is. I remember back in the EA FOF days there was a scouting report email that was sent to you listing team tendencies on each down and situation. It was removed for the 2004 era of the game. Now, this report wasn't as detailed as the stelmack suite's gameplan analyzer, but why couldn't be reimplimented and improved?

I guess numbing it down is better than dumbing it down?

Chubby

04-09-2012, 03:07 PM

Why it's an issue plays into my response to Chubby's last post. It's an issue because a significant number of people don't have the time/interest to pay attention at the level that Kozure is mentioning. Sure, if everyone ran Gameplan Analyzer before every game and acted on what they saw, it's a non-issue. In a perfect MP environment, no one gets away with anything "sneaky" week in and week out. But this is just the latest in a long line of stuff that people--myself included--have gotten away with primarily because lots of people aren't going to "scout" the opposition at that level, if at all. Ramping up passing in the red zone worked wonderfully prior to 6.3, when it was patched away, and you could see that people were doing that from within the game! There was no need to use a third-party utility to see that some teams were doing this big-time. If you just ramped up the pass defense in the red zone, you could shut it down easily, but that took looking in the game to see that people were doing it. As one who used to pass in the red zone a fair bit more than normal, I can assure you that the vast majority of my opponents in every league simply never noticed it.

...and that gets to Chubby's comment..Here's the problem with not having limits: it adds yet another advantage to people like you and me, simply because a significant portion of the rest of the community (and pretty much 100% of the people who just want to sim football and not test the engine) assume that something like that wouldn't work because it doesn't work in real football. So the advantages of playing out on the margins end up only being available to those who enjoy testing the margins out. Most people never think to try the unintuitive nothing-to-do-with-football stuff that works (or has worked in the past) in this game such as using only 1 minute for special teams and formations in TC, or running 85-90% of the time on 3rd and 8, or ramping up passing in the red zone, or throwing the bomb on 2nd and 1 nearly every time, or overlaying pictures of bars before and after interviews, or using adjustments on every play, etc. etc. etc.

And I realize that you *think* that you and others would be ok with "system" game plans where you're not able to dictate what you do in various situations, but I suspect that once people see their team lose an important game because their "Smash Mouth/Conservative" coach happened to throw the bomb on 1st and 10 with a three-point lead midway through the fourth quarter and got intercepted, they'll be clamoring for those little boxes again. ("IF I HAD MY BOXES, I COULD HAVE PUT 'NEVER' FOR LONG PASSING IN THAT SITUATION!!!") ;)

I get that argument< i just thinks it comes down to a screwed either way for Jim. In a true "GM sim" (where I hire the coaches/coordinators who put their system in place) the "shenanigans" are removed and it levels the playing field while reducing headaches for Jim.

Yes, I'm sure somebody will go "I NEVER WOULD HAVE DONE THAT!!!!!" but if the system were fully fleshed out with lots of options, system experience, the ability to influence what system your team practices (but not to the micro level of camp and gameplanning) then I think it's at least something to look at.

and a fog of war option :D

Warhammer

04-09-2012, 03:58 PM

What if we went to a hybrid system approach?

At the start of training camp, you had a checkbox that would indicate the type of offense you run: Balanced/Spread/Singe Wing/Pro Set/etc. This would dictate the %s in which you could game plan.

So you choose a run-first game plan, you are limited to at most 25% pass plays in a 1st and 10 situation. You could have an override, but if you do, you suffer consequences for doing so.

You could also link this to the O-Coordinators, they would have adaptability ratings (would mean a lesser penalty when they override a system for a game)and preferred systems. Suddenly, different systems have different WR requirements, and different RB requirements, etc. I would imagine this would enhance the game as "system" guys would become very valuable to some guys running systems. These guys go to a different team and they are not the same, etc.

Autumn

04-09-2012, 06:17 PM

Yup, and I do not have a problem with it being high. Maybe I'm one of the few that have no problem with the game's imperfections, especially an imperfection that can be handled by simply gameplanning for it. I don't see the 80 to 90 percent success rate on third down and long as you do. I see if I gameplan for it, it becomes a non-factor.

Maybe it's just that I don't like to complain.( yes MRL17, I don't like to complain despite popular belief.) I feel the game is fine though a little under-explained. Still have no idea how some aspects of the game work.

I guess I should clarify. My problem with it is that, perversely, running on 3rd and long seems, in my experience, to work better than running on any other down! If I could be sure of picking up 6-10 yard gains on other downs as regularly as it's possible to do on third down, I'd run all the time!

So my complaint is more about that it ruins the immersion factor for me, and seems an imperfection of the engine, not that it's some gameplanning loophole, if that makes sense. I just find it offputting that I can see the gears of the engine so clearly, that the 'make 1st down' logic so clearly outshines the 'realistic rushing gain' logic in this instance.

Pyser

04-09-2012, 06:28 PM

Ben E Lou

04-09-2012, 06:37 PM

seems like theres a split camp here, and maybe that should be reflected in leagues. when a league starts, choose either Coach Chooses Game Plans (not rexed, but the proper West Coast o-coords, Cover 2 defenses, etc), or GM Chooses Game Plans, and then its business as normal....but here's the thing: there are 15-20 established leagues that aren't going anywhere. People in both camps (and those in between) have some extensive histories that they're not willing to give up. I agree that in a perfect world, people bent toward playing a certain way would join together and form leagues. But some leagues have 8+ years of real-time history, so we're stuck with each other. ;)

sidthelid

04-09-2012, 06:40 PM

I think Ben brings up an interesting point when he mentions people don't have time to scout there teams. Some people don't have time as life stuff comes up which is obviously more important but some people have so many teams they can't possibly concentrate and scout teams. They then perhaps concentrate on 1 or 2 teams based on how good the team is or if it’s their favourite league or whatever criteria they use. You then get leagues where you have say half the GM’s working hard on their team and half not. I don’t know what the answer is but I see this as a big issue with MP leagues.

I also think because there are so many leagues you are always going to get a mix of GM's some very good, some average and some newbies. Being a newbie is horrible when you play the season vets at this game, you just don't stand a chance and that forces people to become disillusioned with the game and frustrated. I think this forum does a great job in helping people but maybe a far better manual would help people understand the game and its quirks. How old is the help manual now, 4 to 5 years old I think? As someone said in a post earlier in this thread there needs to be more aids in the game to help people. I appreciate Jim is a one man band and he has done a great job with the game but maybe it’s time for the more senior FOF’ers to work together and build a manual that helps the newbies and the people who struggle. It was just an idea before I get shot down. :)

Pyser

04-09-2012, 07:01 PM

...but here's the thing: there are 15-20 established leagues that aren't going anywhere. People in both camps (and those in between) have some extensive histories that they're not willing to give up. I agree that in a perfect world, people bent toward playing a certain way would join together and form leagues. But some leagues have 8+ years of real-time history, so we're stuck with each other. ;)

yeah, established leagues are boned. so it goes. it would only be a choice for new leagues that start...which lets be honest. if a new game ever comes out, plenty of brand new leagues would start up.

Kozure

04-10-2012, 06:51 AM

I guess I should clarify. My problem with it is that, perversely, running on 3rd and long seems, in my experience, to work better than running on any other down! If I could be sure of picking up 6-10 yard gains on other downs as regularly as it's possible to do on third down, I'd run all the time!

So my complaint is more about that it ruins the immersion factor for me, and seems an imperfection of the engine, not that it's some gameplanning loophole, if that makes sense. I just find it offputting that I can see the gears of the engine so clearly, that the 'make 1st down' logic so clearly outshines the 'realistic rushing gain' logic in this instance.

I understand your way of thinking. It's just that I gave up on the whole realism thing back around FOF2000. :)

Though how do we know what is realistic and not? How do we know that NFL defenses don't go into a third and 8 with a higher expectation of the run than what is portrayed in our default defensive gameplans and that is why there is a higher success rate in FOF?

I think in realism is a matter of perspective. But if the issue is that GM don't have the time to gameplan, then maybe adding in-game tools, scouting help similar to the stelmack suite gameplan analyzer would help them. A major help to GMs would be if the gameplan analyzer set defensive run and pass expectations to what the analyzer was showing with the push of a "recommend" button. Then you could still go in and tweak where u wish.

I think this is a better than regressing the game and dumbing it down. Adding helpful features to help the average GM along is the way to go, since it appeals to every crowd and goes along with our natural expectation of a bigger and better game.

And yes, implementing something that is "helpful" is easier said than done. :)

Ben E Lou

04-10-2012, 08:10 AM

But if the issue is that GM don't have the time to gameplan, then maybe adding in-game tools, scouting help similar to the stelmack suite gameplan analyzer would help them. A major help to GMs would be if the gameplan analyzer set defensive run and pass expectations to what the analyzer was showing with the push of a "recommend" button. Then you could still go in and tweak where u wishWell, sure. That would solve it completely AND would be realistic (scouting staff prepares based on the other team's tendencies) but...And yes, implementing something that is "helpful" is easier said than done. :)Yeah. :D

Kozure

04-10-2012, 08:52 AM

Well, sure. That would solve it completely AND would be realistic (scouting staff prepares based on the other team's tendencies) but...Yeah. :D

Still doable, just not sure the expectations match the ambition. Not meaning Jim lacks ambition. The game proves otherwise. But I'm sure IF he is adding a feature or creating s new game, a reasonable timeframe until completion negates the ability to implement many great ideas, just like it is with any game.

But if this is a thread that has solecismic's ear, why not throw it out there? Heh

Jughead Spock

04-10-2012, 12:08 PM

SFL Cat

04-11-2012, 12:56 PM

And I realize that you *think* that you and others would be ok with "system" game plans where you're not able to dictate what you do in various situations, but I suspect that once people see their team lose an important game because their "Smash Mouth/Conservative" coach happened to throw the bomb on 1st and 10 with a three-point lead midway through the fourth quarter and got intercepted, they'll be clamoring for those little boxes again. ("IF I HAD MY BOXES, I COULD HAVE PUT 'NEVER' FOR LONG PASSING IN THAT SITUATION!!!") ;)

I think you're right about that reaction, but it also would certainly add a large degree of satisfaction to calling in your coach in at the end of the season and firing his a$$.

stevew

04-11-2012, 01:14 PM

I'd just like to see the coaches mean something in these instances. A def. coach with an 'Excellent' rating seeing ...HEY! those guys run it on 3rd down, like EVERY time! Some sort of percentage adjustment to the def. playcalls.

Yeah, i was thinking something similar. If the coordinator skill level could matter a bit more, it could probably slow down the silliness.

gstelmack

04-11-2012, 01:16 PM

Yeah, i was thinking something similar. If the coordinator skill level could matter a bit more, it could probably slow down the silliness.

Or you don't edit the gameplan at all, but rather hire coordinators who bring gameplans with them...

Ben E Lou

04-11-2012, 01:18 PM

I think you're right about that reaction, but it also would certainly add a large degree of satisfaction to calling in your coach in at the end of the season and firing his a$$.Hehehehe.

Kozure

04-11-2012, 05:55 PM

Or you don't edit the gameplan at all, but rather hire coordinators who bring gameplans with them...

i honestly would have no problem with that.

scorp

04-11-2012, 09:57 PM

It would be nice if there was a checkbox or slider for coordinator/coach adjust.
You could have no coach help or max it for the coaches to use their abiilty to adjust during the game.

merry

05-26-2012, 01:25 AM

Hi,
It's not clear to me how often a run succeeds on 3rd and 8-10 against:
1) 100% pass defense with a nickle.
2) 100% aggresive pass defense with a nickle.
Compared with passing success in against the same distance.
.
In any event there must be a tipping point where a simple % run defense makes running less succesful than passing. Why not use that when they usually run a lot.?
You don't need the game analyser to sweep your eyes down a game log and look at their offense on 3rd and 8-10. And if they are consistantly running let the other GMs know what you have noticed. I bet that run team will have to change their calls pretty quickly.
What do you think?
Merry

aston217

05-26-2012, 06:19 AM

You don't need the game analyser to sweep your eyes down a game log and look at their offense on 3rd and 8-10.

Well, this is true, but it's tedious and you can be easily misled by small sample size.

Much easier to pull up GPA and say, "oh, okay, he's never really run on 3rd and 10 the entire year." Or "Oh okay, he runs a ton on 3rd and 10." Just be prepared for trickses ;)

A-Husker-4-Life

05-26-2012, 09:40 AM

It's great to see Jim commenting on the games engine and it sounds like he's not satisfied with all the results. I believe that give's us hope he's making a new version.

Simbo Klice

05-27-2012, 12:56 AM

I never really liked the Run/Pass aggressive emphasis to begin with. I think that should be decided more with the formation you and your opponent are in, and the plays being run.

For example, if it's 3rd and 9 and the offense comes out in a 4-wide and runs a dive play, and I'm in the dime with a cover 2 deep, the yardage should be close to the average for a middle run with maybe a slightly higher chance of a long run because there's less people in the space than usual. They don't have a large blocking advantage, because they're just as spread out as I am. Now if they come out in a 3 wide with a TE and I'm in dime, even if one of my CB's would be hypothetically in to cover the TE, there should be an advantage to the offensive line there if the TE isn't a complete run blocking scrub and the play should be typically better than average.

Firefly

05-27-2012, 08:25 AM

Has decreasing the penalty for playing aggressive pass defense against the run in every situation been discussed? Maybe it's too high to begin with.

Wanderer

06-14-2012, 02:19 AM

Whoa, late to the party on this...

I'd just like to see the coaches mean something in these instances. A def. coach with an 'Excellent' rating seeing ...HEY! those guys run it on 3rd down, like EVERY time! Some sort of percentage adjustment to the def. playcalls.This is what I was thinking as I read through the thread. These are in-game reactions, and so basically out of the GM's hands.

I can visualize an additional explicit coaching and/or scouting attribute, "Film Room" or some such. This metric would combine with the amount of film available on an opposing team/coach that measures how much he is able to learn about a opposing team/coach's tendencies and his ability to adjust accordingly. This would allow adjustments from the gameplan to increase speed that "familiar" notifications build in the course of a game.

Also, a hidden attribute akin to experience for players, but an accruing measure of the number of times a coach has gone head-to-head with a particular coach, or if they had been on a staff together in the past, gives him an ability to "smell" tricks and deviations.
Think of how many times Fisher, Cowher, & Billick faced each other, butting heads for 8 years in the AFC North (& Central). Or the battle of wits when Belichick finally faced off against Parcells when the Browns faced the Pats and bested him in the playoffs with a clearly inferior team.

It sounds abstract, but it's definitely modelable once you settle on what the different effects would be and how they play off each other. If you have a good coach and an opposing GM pulls that shit you would shut it down in a big hurry. Of course, if their coach is good, he'll go up top on a run action 3-step drop right past your 1-deep bump coverage.

Does that make coaches matter too much? Maybe. But football is a coach's game. And I agree that a GM should have the ability to "turn down the dial" on this, though not all the way to zero.

Secondarily, we have attributes for intelligence and play recognition, we measure experience and leadership. With low-ish confidence, my *impression* is that they are drastically underutilized in-game. Is there any reason your veteran MLB or SS with 85 INT, 79 PR, and 95 Ld shouldn't have some effect on this? If an opposing team was doing this, don't you think Ronnie Lott or Brian Dawkins, Mike Singletary or Zach Thomas would make them pay?

All that said, I agree that running for punt/field position on 3rd & long is often a good play in real football as well, depending on clock and field position. Probably more than it is actually used.

Wanderer

06-14-2012, 02:20 AM

Oh, and most of all I agree with Jim that we can't keep patching over the game planning modules. They need to be stripped, rethought, and rebuilt.

aston217

06-14-2012, 05:42 AM

I think there is a good mix of 'bars that affect game mechanics.' Intelligence plays a pretty significant and interesting factor in player evaluation out of the draft for a large number of positions (perhaps it could be incorporated into OL somehow), but I think these ancillary attributes are in the right place for the most part.

Leadership/personality only count for the (somewhat simplistic and underdeveloped) affinities and leaders model the game has. But, even if it's simplistic, from the user standpoint it's interesting without being a game changer. Do you build your roster for affinities (like that one guy who's going to have 20 exceptional affinities on his roster in an MP league...) or are you going to sacrifice for talent in most cases?

I love a lot of those ideas and they make sense. Although from the standpoint of MP gameplay, it should remain a GM (as in the human controller)'s game. Coaches matter enough already, IMO, in enough variety of ways. The difference between average and great playcalling is very noticeable. New coaches and low discipline ones can kill you with penalties. Of course, injuries plays a role as well. And then there's that 'motivation' modifier that sort of rolls all the little things into one skill.

Wanderer

06-14-2012, 06:18 AM

Yeah, I can definitely see the film room thing residing with the scouts instead of the coaches. Having scouts affect more than just draft/FA would be interesting (and realistic).

QuikSand

06-15-2012, 02:42 PM

Do you build your roster for affinities (like that one guy who's going to have 20 exceptional affinities on his roster in an MP league...) or are you going to sacrifice for talent in most cases?

*perks up*

Magnum357

06-18-2012, 09:40 PM

I know I'm going to regret saying this, but those "3rd down" run percentages remind me of Arena Football Percentages. In the "Standard" Arena Football game, coaches hardly run the ball (maybe 4 or 5 rushes by the FB or FL, more if the QB is involved) but its indeed entirely possible for your QB's to scramble the ball on 3rd down situations. Not saying this is true, but the percentages REALLY remind of the same bell curve.

This is the main "debat" between Arena Football and Indoor Football. Indoor Football's main focus is on standard Football, while Arena Football's focus is to Pass the ball 95% of the game. Personally, I kinda like Indoor Football's logic to this, but you would be suprised by the "die hard" Arena Football fans they have. They are willing to "kill" if you don't agree to there philosophy. Trust me, I know. :eek:

And we are right in the middle of Arena Football season with an 18 game season. Keep that in mind, ok.

Autumn

03-21-2013, 07:57 AM

An example of what I"m talking about here - I'm playing a team that runs quite a bit on third down, so I called a lot of run. Here on 3rd and 14 I'm playing a perfect defense, yet give up a 17 yard run. This happens an inordinate amount on third down runs. I think it's clear that the system determines "is this 3rd down run a success" before it determines how many yards it gets, leading to skewed results.

Buffalo: I formation with two tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 34 and 1-deep, bump-and-run coverage, expecting the run.
3-14-BUF49 (1Q: 04:51) Rashard Kowalczyk ran outside the right tackle for 17 yards. Tackled by ILB Joel Baca, assisted by ILB D'andrea Hevey. Key block delivered by Ryan Newlon.

Autumn

03-21-2013, 08:00 AM

Even more annoying about it. I have no control over my two-minute defense, while the opponent can shut off their two-minute offense. So I get stuck playing aggressive dime while he keeps running.

Buffalo: I formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 34 with dime personnel and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, keying aggressively on the pass. Abner is blitzing.
3-7-BUF11 (2Q: 01:02) Michael Maupin ran around right end for 24 yards. Tackled by S Darryl Wilker. Key block delivered by Peter Blunk.

Buffalo: Weak formation with two tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 34 with dime personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass. Mann is blitzing.
1-10-BUF35 (2Q: 00:24) PENALTY: Buffalo was called for a False Start.

Buffalo: I formation with two tight ends, strength is right. The defense is in a 34 with dime personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass. Mann is blitzing.
1-15-BUF30 (2Q: 00:24) Rashard Kowalczyk ran around left end for 70 yards and a TOUCHDOWN! Key block delivered by Jonas Keifer. Chicago 10, Buffalo 9

Ben E Lou

03-21-2013, 08:08 AM

That's exactly what the engine does right now. Familiarity is a scale - you don't see the message until you're fairly far down that road. But the threshold could be higher in these specific instances.

For those of you who were around for earlier versions of the game, there were harder limits on game plans for precisely this reason at one time. I felt the consensus at the time was that those limits were too artificial.I must have missed this the first time around. Perhaps you were misunderstanding what I was saying. The previous "limits" WERE artificial in the sense that you could put any numbers in those boxes, but certain numbers brought automatic death. Doing it that way doesn't make sense. It would be far better to simply limit what numbers can go in the little boxes. There's no justifiable reason to allow someone to run 80% of the time on 3rd and 11 or to pass 95% of the time on 2nd and 1.

Yoda

03-22-2013, 08:30 AM

There's no justifiable reason to allow someone to run 80% of the time on 3rd and 11 or to pass 95% of the time on 2nd and 1.

I disagree here. If I am a run based/defensive team, I'd prefer to run the ball and punt than risk an interception.

Firefly

03-22-2013, 09:50 PM

An example of what I"m talking about here - I'm playing a team that runs quite a bit on third down, so I called a lot of run. Here on 3rd and 14 I'm playing a perfect defense, yet give up a 17 yard run. This happens an inordinate amount on third down runs. I think it's clear that the system determines "is this 3rd down run a success" before it determines how many yards it gets, leading to skewed results.

No offense, but what we have here is a case of "your-run-defense-sucks-balls". Or had a terrible game, at the very least. Even against agressive pass defense you're not going to convert 3rd and 14s a good % of the time by running the ball. More than is realistic, yes, but that's all.

Autumn

03-26-2013, 09:57 AM

No offense, but what we have here is a case of "your-run-defense-sucks-balls". Or had a terrible game, at the very least. Even against agressive pass defense you're not going to convert 3rd and 14s a good % of the time by running the ball. More than is realistic, yes, but that's all.

I don't think that's the case at all, but I certainly don't have the evidence to prove it. That defense quoted above was one of the best in the league this year.

I have not found any reason to think the quality of my defense (or lack thereof) is the reason that gameplans like that work well, since teams that run on third down do well, not just against my team (which in this case went 11-7), but against all sorts of teams. Certainly like any offense they do better against crappy defenses. But the point in question is whether they do better than should be expected, and I think the answer is a definite yes. I think you will find it's easier to get a 16 yard again on 3rd and 15 than it is on 1st and 15, or 1st and 5 or 2nd and 5 or 2nd and 10.

strickzilla

04-06-2013, 04:20 AM

I don't think that's the case at all, but I certainly don't have the evidence to prove it. That defense quoted above was one of the best in the league this year.

I have not found any reason to think the quality of my defense (or lack thereof) is the reason that gameplans like that work well, since teams that run on third down do well, not just against my team (which in this case went 11-7), but against all sorts of teams. Certainly like any offense they do better against crappy defenses. But the point in question is whether they do better than should be expected, and I think the answer is a definite yes. I think you will find it's easier to get a 16 yard again on 3rd and 15 than it is on 1st and 15, or 1st and 5 or 2nd and 5 or 2nd and 10.

well met sir :popcorn:

Nemesis

04-06-2013, 08:27 AM

Yoda

04-06-2013, 11:33 AM

My general philosophy is that on 3rd and long, if I don't have a reasonable chance to make it or if I have stud punter/special teams, is that I would RATHER run the ball and punt.

You have people who say that in fof each yard doesn't matter. Personally, I think those people are idiots. Each yard is another yard they have to go for a TD, to get into FG range.

Also, I want to comment on defensive familiarity. I don't think it works. Period. I've seen to many teams have dominating defense that play nothing but Bump and Run / 3 Deep with no ill effects (giving up more yardage/completions as the game goes on).

I have teams who have gotten BETTER defensively by limiting the number of defensive formations they run (to like 2 or maybe 3 different ones per game).

If you are in pass aggressive defense and it's 3rd and 6, the offense should have a decent chance of converting when it runs the ball.

As for conversions when running when it's 3rd and 10 or more, I'd have to look at the stats, but it shouldn't be impossible.

Firefly

04-07-2013, 10:16 AM

lol Yoda, good post. Converting on 3rd and 10 and beyond running the ball, from what I've seen in the GP analyzer, doesn't have a great chance of success, but neither does passing the ball. Generally speaking.