Re: Which do you prefer Offline or Online?
I agree. But that's where the Dev team comes in. I wrote b4 that I bet there are coders/programmers in that building who are told "we need hook/curl zones in the game". They are not educated how or why it's used. They are not told there is a progression to it. They put it in how they 'think' it should be, maybe read an article or 2.
So back to your point, we can't trust LB's to behave like LB's if CPU controlled. And if we can't 'coach' them to be LB's, they have to be programmed to behave like one. This is why if a LB has a zone assignment in the game, he bails at the snap and drops so far back that unders are open all the time or a warp animation kicks in to come back for a run.
If there was a progression: LB's should always take a 'read' step. Towards the line or lateral is a coach or scheme difference. But this step, or pause, keeps the LB near the LOS in case they 'read' a run. If it is a pass, this step mimics the first step of the QB for timing. The LB then mirrors the rest of the QB's drop steps, settling when the QB settles. This puts him at a depth that matches the routes Receivers are running. Now it's the AWR and/or PRC to diagnose who's entering/leaving your zone. The off arm (without the ball) of the QB is a 'tell' for throw depth. If it raises, the QB needs to get air to go deep, level and it's short to intermediate. If the LB next to you blitzed, you have to widen and adjust your coverage area.
Too much detail there or not, the point is if programmers understood how the player is taught to behave, the AI could be coded 'smarter'. A LB who has a hook/curl zone but drops back 10-12 yards on a 3 step drop is useless to me.
I agree. But that's where the Dev team comes in. I wrote b4 that I bet there are coders/programmers in that building who are told "we need hook/curl zones in the game". They are not educated how or why it's used. They are not told there is a progression to it. They put it in how they 'think' it should be, maybe read an article or 2.
So back to your point, we can't trust LB's to behave like LB's if CPU controlled. And if we can't 'coach' them to be LB's, they have to be programmed to behave like one. This is why if a LB has a zone assignment in the game, he bails at the snap and drops so far back that unders are open all the time or a warp animation kicks in to come back for a run.
If there was a progression: LB's should always take a 'read' step. Towards the line or lateral is a coach or scheme difference. But this step, or pause, keeps the LB near the LOS in case they 'read' a run. If it is a pass, this step mimics the first step of the QB for timing. The LB then mirrors the rest of the QB's drop steps, settling when the QB settles. This puts him at a depth that matches the routes Receivers are running. Now it's the AWR and/or PRC to diagnose who's entering/leaving your zone. The off arm (without the ball) of the QB is a 'tell' for throw depth. If it raises, the QB needs to get air to go deep, level and it's short to intermediate. If the LB next to you blitzed, you have to widen and adjust your coverage area.
Too much detail there or not, the point is if programmers understood how the player is taught to behave, the AI could be coded 'smarter'. A LB who has a hook/curl zone but drops back 10-12 yards on a 3 step drop is useless to me.
Comment