4-3 Under DTs

[MSchads]

I can very well be wrong, but I believe the LDT and RDT weights in 4-3 Under are wrong in the help file’s defensive philosophy. Either that or the 4-3 Under DT’s should be flipped within the help file. Your 1-tech’s, a smaller NT, ideal weight is 306 and your 3-tech is 315? I’m a bit confused on this one. 4-3 Over seems like it has a similar issue. Please tell me I’m wrong about this.

Sidenote: I understand it’s a defensive tackle, but what does the position UT actually stand for? Google says the University of Texas and I tend to disagree.

[Ushikawa]

UT is te 3T and yes it is backwards and quite annoying, at least in the Over you can say well the depth chart is correct but for the 43O it makes even less sense as the supposed NT and UT are switched.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by MSchads

Sidenote: I understand it’s a defensive tackle, but what does the position UT actually stand for?

Under tackle

[MSchads]

Thank you for answering, thought I was seeing things. So are these the correct weights for the 4-3 Under defensive line?

4-3 Under:

Right End - 275
Right Tackle 3-Tech (UT) - 306
Left Tackle 1-Tech (NT) - 315
Left End - 280

I switched the defensive ends' weights because I believe those are wrong as well. The Left End is going up against a heavier Tackle than the Right End and is also on the strong side. Does not make sense to have a lighter defensive end at Left End, but I very well can be wrong. A heavy SLB (on the same side) might be the reason the Left End is lighter.

I understand that this is a computer game and they are not going head-to-head in an actual game, but there is some logic to be used here and Jim would not have put these weights for each position for no reason.

4-3 Over:

Right End: 263
Right Tackle 1-Tech (NT): 316
Left Tackle 3-Tech (UT): 309
Left End: 270

Did not switch the defensive ends, just defensive tackles. This seems right.

I don't usually play 3-4 because the game does not use a true 3-4 nickel and dime package and keeps the NT on the field and takes off the ILB. 4-3 is much more realistic in those sub-packages. However, it looks like the 3-4 defensive ends weights should be switched as well and I'm questioning whether the 3-4 OLB weights are correct.

Seems like we need a new defensive weight chart.

[triplykely]

If I’m not mistaken the DE weights you’ve got are correct, your logic follows and I swear I saw a post a long time ago about this. Typically I’m locking in a player or so and REXing depth charts, always have my big run stopper DE as LDE, and REX seems to want to swap them around, which seems to further validate the assertion.

[MSchads]

Originally Posted by triplykely

If I’m not mistaken the DE weights you’ve got are correct, your logic follows and I swear I saw a post a long time ago about this. Typically I’m locking in a player or so and REXing depth charts, always have my big run stopper DE as LDE, and REX seems to want to swap them around, which seems to further validate the assertion.

I have seen the same thing from using REX.

So is there the potential that REX is right and the defensive line's positioning is backward? Meaning the LDE is lining up with the LT and RDE with the RT.

[triplykely]

Without looking into it further, from what I've seen (and vaguely remember seeing) and what you're describing, I believe the weight issue is what's causing the depth chart issue.

Since the help file seems to have 43 DT weights backwards, and 43 Under DEs backwards, if you correctly position your heavy runstopping DE as LDE and pass rusher as RDE, in the 43 Under REX will have an issue because roles have been reversed. This would apply to DTs in both 43 Under and Over.

Given this is a one man operation, and the absurd amount of tedious work put into it, I'm inclined to chalk this up to simple human error. And as you mention, it's not like Jim threw this together with no knowledge of football or the NFL. He clearly was a fan of both and knew a lot, then his creativity and his statistical aptitude led to more knowledge and FOF. This seems to further backup what we're concluding.

I'm not sure if there is a way to find out from the game logs who lines up over who. Because the question now is, does who is listed as LDE in the depth chart actually line up at LDE for sim purposes? What if the weight's flipped causes the depth chart role reversal which leads to a sim engine re-reversal to how it should be? Maybe I'm a little medicated with that last question, but I do think checking game logs could provide more of a clear answer to this - if the info is there. As it sits I'm pretty sure that if I manually lock in my pass rusher as RDE he will line up against the LT; even if the game wants to flip with the LDE because of the weight mistake. Irritating to do it manually, and frustrating not knowing 100%.

Regarding the 34 it looks like the OLB are backwards as well. In the NFL and the help file description of the positions, the WLB is your primary blitzer and would be lighter/faster in real life. I'm not sure about the depth charts as I don't play 34 often but I'd imagine its like the 43.

Ideally, unless I'm imagining this post I vaguely remember from a while back, someone who's been around FOF for a while can help clarify this for everyone. When I get a chance I will dig into this a bit more to see what I can find; admittedly I haven't considered it's impact significant enough to pursue but now that you bring it up that changes.

Edit: I don't see anything in the game logs that can help aside from possibly controlling for snaps by position by manually using multiple DTs/DEs for the different personnel groups. Not sure what other data can be pulled so if anyone can scratch this mental itch I now can't reach that'd be great

[MSchads]

I got a response from Solecismic:

"The official response is that the chart in the help file is incorrect.
The LT and RT values have been switched for the 43 defenses (within each
defense, not Over/Under - the chart reads correctly if the position
names are switched). Everything else, including the diagrams later in
the help file and the game engine itself and the AI, uses the correct
values. All other values related to weights have been thoroughly checked."

I followed up about 3-4 DE & OLB and 4-3 DE, but they said the chart was correct for those weights. I still don't feel great about that.

If there is to be a FOF9, I would like to see at least a range for weight tailored to each position. It may allow you to feel more comfortable playing a heavy DE at DT or NT in nickel or dime. A true nickleback weight would be nice as they have to help in run support and should be a little bigger than outside corners.

[triplykely]

Originally Posted by MSchads

I got a response from Solecismic:

"The official response is that the chart in the help file is incorrect.
The LT and RT values have been switched for the 43 defenses (within each
defense, not Over/Under - the chart reads correctly if the position
names are switched). Everything else, including the diagrams later in
the help file and the game engine itself and the AI, uses the correct
values. All other values related to weights have been thoroughly checked."

This is great confirmation of what looked to be the case. I feel rather foolish; I'm normally good at solving problems, but asking the developer never came to mind

Originally Posted by MSchads

I followed up about 3-4 DE & OLB and 4-3 DE, but they said the chart was correct for those weights. I still don't feel great about that.

The 34 DEs look right - LE bigger than RE - but that's interesting about the OLBs.

From the help file:
True 34
Strong-Side Linebacker (O): Lines up in the 9-technique outside the tight end, and is responsible for containment on the strong side.
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. He is often the best blitzer on the defense, and is expected to rush on most pass plays. He will often be just off of the line.
34 Eagle
Strong-Side Linebacker (O): Lines up in the 7-technique inside the tight end, and is responsible for the C-gap and containment on the strong side.
Weak-Side Linebacker (O): Lines up in the 60-technique over the tight end’s position on the weak side and is responsible for containment. He is often the best blitzer on the defense, and is expected to rush on most pass plays.

and in the section on blitzing
The choices in each section allow to change how often each defender blitzes, relative to the average amount of blitzing from that position. Players in the secondary are least likely to blitz. In the 34 defense, the Weak-Side Linebacker (WLB) blitzes by far the most. So even if you set this selection to Lightest (1), he will still blitz quite a bit.

Ultimately, I think we have to trust the response. While counterintuitive to program the 43 RDE or 34 WLB as larger than their counter parts, that doesn't mean it isn't how FOF is written.

Originally Posted by MSchads

If there is to be a FOF9, I would like to see at least a range for weight tailored to each position. It may allow you to feel more comfortable playing a heavy DE at DT or NT in nickel or dime. A true nickleback weight would be nice as they have to help in run support and should be a little bigger than outside corners.

This among other things is why I was originally excited by the idea of OOTP partnering with Solecismic - Jim has a great mind and put incredible thought into FOF, but he's one guy. Taking the foundation in place that he's built over all of this time and expanding on current features/adding new ones would really take this great game to another level. Honestly, with all of the Madden negative publicity building to a crescendo this year, I feel there is a market for a real football sim. And in my view, FOF is the best football sim, although that doesn't mean others don't shine in some areas.

What I would love to see the most if FOF9 comes to pass is more micro control of defense like we have on offense. If we could pick plays for given situations like offense, and set defensive personnel groups for offensive personnel groups we'd face, finer blitz control (would love an option to literally pick who blitzes on each play), and more if I think longer.

Obviously the coding logistics of taking what Jim has built over decades into a new group of people presents many challenges that I'm only aware of broadly. The specifics of these challenges could be quite an obstacle; I don't code or know anything about FOFs code in relation to other games. While I have no background in game design, what a dream that would be to discuss helping evolve FOF into an even greater game. From my layman's perspective, its the algorithms behind player ratings, scouting, the sim engine, etc. that Jim significantly beats the competition. Maybe its not as complicated as working with a multi-decade evolving code base; it could be as simple as applying the algorithms within it to a new code base.

And if we ultimately hear that Jim has decided FOF8 is the last version, I really hope someone new comes along with a bigger focus on emulating FOFs strong points instead of using 'shiny' graphics/animation/UI to mask a poor draft/sim engine/rating system/etc. (although player models to watch in sims, nice graphics and UI would be great additions and truly take the game over the top)

*if there is a better football sim and I simply don't know of it, let me know

[finkellll]

34 SLB is the one that blitzes more in game. I believe it is the blitz weight screen in the def. gameplan but there is a screen that designates the SLB as the blitz heavy LB.

[Dawgfan19]

Originally Posted by finkellll

34 SLB is the one that blitzes more in game. I believe it is the blitz weight screen in the def. gameplan but there is a screen that designates the SLB as the blitz heavy LB.

The in-game help indicates the WLB blitzes "by far the most".

The choices in each section allow to change how often each defender blitzes, relative to the average amount of blitzing from that position. Players in the secondary are least likely to blitz. In the 34 defense, the Weak-Side Linebacker (WLB) blitzes by far the most. So even if you set this selection to Lightest (1), he will still blitz quite a bit.

[Ushikawa]

I don't undertand...for the 43 Over the depth chart still reads backwards with the NT listed as next to the LDE and the UT listed next to the RDE

I have been putting my UT in the NT spot and my NT in the UT spot---should that be reversed?

[triplykely]

My understanding is that because of the weight flip, they’re ordered wrong on the depth chart, but the correct position. Your UT will line up correctly next to the LDE in sims despite the chart showing the UT lined up next to the RDE.

[Ushikawa]

OK that is what I have been doing

[joe the wanderer]

So for the 4-3 Over, the RDT should be the lighter of the two DTs?

I have a 300 pound LDT. If I propose switching him to RDT, I'm told he's below the ideal weight for his current position and significantly below the proposed position. That tells me the RDT should be the heavier of the two...

I'm very confused. Please help.

[triplykely]

Yes the RDT is the lighter, pass rushing DT - the weight chart in the help file is confirmed as being flipped by Jim. My understanding is that even though the weights are flipped (and why you get that message) for sim purposes the positions are correct. Big run stopper LDT, smaller pass rusher RDT, ignore the weight message (weight training may be used to get to ideal weight)

[MSchads]

Originally Posted by joe the wanderer

So for the 4-3 Over, the RDT should be the lighter of the two DTs?

I have a 300 pound LDT. If I propose switching him to RDT, I'm told he's below the ideal weight for his current position and significantly below the proposed position. That tells me the RDT should be the heavier of the two...

I'm very confused. Please help.

You should be bulking up that 300-pound LDT no matter what for the 4-3 Over. Not concrete, but usually see a 9-12 pound increase/decrease when weight training so he should become your Left Tackle 3-tech.

Correct 4-3 Over Weights:

Right End: 263
Right Tackle 1-Tech: 316
Left Tackle 3-Tech: 309
Left End: 270

Originally Posted by triplykely

Yes the RDT is the lighter, pass rushing DT - the weight chart in the help file is confirmed as being flipped by Jim. My understanding is that even though the weights are flipped (and why you get that message) for sim purposes the positions are correct. Big run stopper LDT, smaller pass rusher RDT, ignore the weight message (weight training may be used to get to ideal weight)

(^Above, RDT should be your 1-tech run stopper in 4-3 Over, not 3-tech pass rusher. The weight message is right, the help file is wrong.)

Looking through the game logs, the UT and NT are flipped. The game log will tell you if the player is playing the 1-tech or 3-tech. When you look at the depth chart, think of Left-to-Right rather than the positions UT and NT.

[tzach]

there's some confusion above -- mschads has the correct info and guidance

fwiw the 43 DT weights have been corrected in the 8.4 help file.

the diagrams, defense descriptions and log files show the correct info.

the problem with the nomenclature in the 43 over defense depth chart window still persists -- as mschads suggested above, the best is to think of the alignment as left-to-right.

43 over -> LDE, LDT 3tc DT (called NT in the depth chart, but actually not aligning as a NT), RDT 1tc DT (called UT, but actually lining up as NT in the diagrams), and RDE.

43 under -> LDE, LDT 1tc DT (called UT, but lining up as NT), RDT 3tc DT (called NT, but lining up as UT), RDE.

[triplykely]

Seems I’ve been confused, appreciate the clarification