Playcalling Patch Please

[G-Men_in_Mass]

Quote: Originally Posted by marxshut

Its a game by game decision. If you've moved the ball up and down the field all day long, you kick the FG to get within one score. Conversely if you've struggled on offense all day long and this is the closest you've come to punching one in, you might play for the TD because you don't have the confidence in your offense to drive the ball back down the field to score again. I don't think this one is black and white.

Your right in no way is it black and white .. so many thing come in to affect when makin this call, like the score if its low scoring and your D is playing well you go for the TD hoping to stop them quick and get the ball back, but if its a high scoring affair you might want kick to get the points in fear they will just drive down and punch it in again.. this has turned into a great topic.. Its up to the player/coach.. but i kinda like how the CPU went with the more aggersive move and went for the TD!!

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hipster-Doofus

Lol, my point exactly.

Right, I am conceding that I am inferior to you and I would like to know why his logic was so silly so I can become a little more like yourself.

[BigTigLSU]

I think it should be dynamic not all situations should be the same. Sometimes coaches make questionable calls I dont mind seeing that in the game. Not every coach will go for the 3 points even if its % wise the better call. So a little variety is ok. Now if it happens the same way everytime then it needs to be patched. But there are times when coaches are more conservative and others when they go with a gut feeling. If there was no such thing as a bad play call then coaches would never be fired...

[Hipster-Doofus]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Right, I am conceding that I am inferior to you and I would like to know why his logic was so silly so I can become a little more like yourself.

First of all, I was in know way shape or form trying to come off as a know it all. I was merely referring to the fact that so many people out there claim to know what should or shouldn't be done in any given situation. How many times do you watch a football game and hear, "oh what a stupid call, clearly you should have done this or that", "obviously in that situation it would have been better to do this".

Everyone's an expert, or at least claims to be through there judgements on what should or shouldn't have been done. While sitting safely on their couches watching the game rather then standing on the sidelines calling plays, they all seem to know. If I didn't know any better, sometimes I would think that some people are the ones spending countless hours watching film, and spending hour upon hour, day after day breaking film down and trying to digest every little bit of information possible.

What I'm trying to say is, I shouldn't have singled anyone out, and should have been more "general" in my statement. As someone already said in here, it all depends on the situation, and that specific game to be able to make a call there. There is no BLACK and WHITE what so ever. Not ever coach is going to make the same decision.

Those on here that seem to have all the answers are, I guess, experts on the game and much watch film after film, and spend hour after hour in the office game planning.

Anyways, back to the OP's original point, I'm not sure if this is patchable or not. I have seen some "strange" calls in certain situations for sure, but I'm not sure if it's patch worthly or not. I guess you to ask yourself if they DID patch it, would you be upset about it...my answer is NO.

[jhawkmike]

Quote: Originally Posted by mva5580

Why would any coach go for the TD in that situation? Some of you play video games way too much and just think it must be that easy to score a TD in real life. You still NEED to score twice no matter what. So you take the 3 points and play defense. If you get stuffed on 4th down then you have absolutely zero chance to win where as if you take the "easy" 3 points, you at least give yourself a chance. This isn't hard to figure out.

Actually, it is hard to figure out. To simplify this a little bit, let us assume that in either case the coach will successfully attempt an onside kick and get the ball back at his own 45 yard line, and at some point successfully convert a 2 point try. Taking these things for granted, there are four variables that a coach should consider:

A) % chance of scoring a TD on 4th and goal from the 2
B) % chance of successfully kicking a FG from the 2
C) % chance, at your own 45, of driving into FG range and successfully making a FG in the allotted time.
D) % chance, at your own 45, of driving 55 yards for a TD in the allotted time.

If you determine A x C to be greater than B x D, then you should go for it. If not, kick the FG.

A and B are fairly easy to estimate. A quick Google search told me that teams are successful in 2 point conversions about 44% of the time, and that kickers make their PATs about 95% of the time. Of course, in the circumstance we are talking about, the ball is at the 2, not the 3. Unlike the NFL, in college you kick PATs and attempt two point conversions from the 3 yard line. I would think that moving in a yard might increase 2 point conversion success a little bit, but have almost no effect on PATs. Also distorting these statistics a little bit is the fact that if a snap is muffed and the placeholder picks it up and trys to run it in but fails, this is considered a failed two point try, not a failed PAT. But these are just estimates anyways, and so we'll say A=.44 and B=.95.

C and D are much more difficult to estimate. C especially would depend on how good your FG kicker is. But I'll guess C has a 40% success rate, and that and D has about a 15% success rate.

So..

A x C= .44 x .40 = .1760
B x D= .95 x .15 = .1425

Answer: If these numbers were correct, then you should go for it. But who knows what numbers you should actually plug in for these variables. The point is that it's not an easy decision, and the right choice would be different from game to game based on a lot of different factors.

Also, left out of this analysis is the fact that if you go for it on 4th, make it, and then recover the onside kick, you now have a chance to not only send the game into overtime, but to win it with a TD. Even if you missed the 2 point conversion, you would still have this opportunity.

And what if you don't recover the onside kick, but are able to stop them and get the ball back at your own 20 with 30 seconds left. It would be a LOT easier to get a FG in this situation than to get a TD.

So I think most of the time you should go for it. If you have a bad FG kicker (but not so bad that he can't make it from the 2 yard line), then it might be smarter to take the 3 points.

[ftball11]

Like John Madden always said..."never take points off the board". I think the vast majority of coaches, in real life, would have kicked the 3 in that situation - not all, but the vast majority. In all the years I have played NCAA, I have been in that situation numerous times, probably too many to count, and I have never seen the AI take the easy 3 points. I am not saying the AI won't do it or hasn't done it, but it has never happened in any of the games I have played.

[OMT]

Quote: Originally Posted by ManOfLaMange

Besides being awesome alliteration, I just watched an FSU team down 26-17 with 2:06 left in the 4th go for it on 4th and goal from the 2 after being stuffed three times. Any any ANY college coach takes the three there, because you have to score twice. I would like to believe that EA can put together an AI that just goes from the "sheet", that infamous sheet which tells coaches when to always go for 2, when to go for it on 4th, etc. rather than something like that which definitely cost FSU the game. Don't get me wrong, I like to win, but not on something cheap like terrible playcalling.

That's exactly how our playcalling works. We have what is called an AI script. I don't know much about it cause I have never worked with it, but the game looks at where you are on the field, time in the game, score, personnel, maybe some randomness, etc and the formula spits out an AI decision.

[steelers1]

I always wanted individual plays to be 'tagged' for different situations. Plays could have multiple tags based on time in the game, field position, score, and even based on how good the player is that that play is designed to got to. Each play could have multiple tags, and they could be edited by the user. This would allow for better 'Ask Corso' or 'Ask Coach' plays, could let the user see a list of plays in his playbook that fit the current situation,and could also be used by the CPU to call a more balanced and realistic game.... just an idea though.