Gameplanning in CFM is not correct.

[4thQtrStre5S]

When it comes to the CPU...I don't need that info, cause I know they are most likely going to run on 1st down....

If this stuff works for human opponents, then it becomes somewhat useful, but only if it is promoted accurately so that I know what the numbers really mean.

I recall, FBpro 98, where community members created an application that would track every play called by the offense and defense; it wold list the plays called, and their results for every game, and you could view the information on the computer and even print it out...This information included box score summaries, etc...plus the application allowed a person to search the game file by play name, down, distance, etc etc..

I would think that having it be over 15 years later, this type of information should be standard in any sports game..

The App wa called, "Logger," here is a link, and it provides screenshots of the app.. http://www.gelat.com/fpssite/index.html

^^^ click "Utilities" on the left side of page.

[howboutdat]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

I agree that I would like to see the weights of how my opponent calls his offense and defense not only by down but also by distance (short / medium / long).

Here , i totally agree. Its actually what i have been calling for for years now.The "suggestion "playcalling stuff they have at the bottom of the playart on plays in the playcalling screen, needs to be separated in CFM.





What i mean by this, when it says the Steelers frequently call curl in 3rd and medium.That data should be based only on that opponent, and how he plays in that particular CFM. That data in CFM should not be based on all online games played ( which it is) .In a CFM, most the guys who play in them ( especially online ones) would love to see that data be based only on that person they are playing. That would be like having a coordinator working for you on both sides of the ball, and really be beneficial to people in CFM, and help out with playcalling more than anything else they could add. Its something ive been calling for and want to see happen.

As that stands, i know that data is based on all games played online ( which includes all the lobby games where people just run plays over and over and over and over) so i dont even pay attention to that data either, because i dont see it as that helpful in a Sim Online League. It would be nice if the CFM playcalling suggestions were only based on that opponent.

[booker21]

I said before EA needs to focus on gameplan/playcalling/playbooks. Huge part of the game that get no work. I guess they think only people play user vs user.

[Aestis]

Gotta agree with CM Hoe, weighing it heavily/exclusively toward 1st down is meaningful and helps me out. After that, especially 3rd down, the defensive play calling gets a lot more situational. E.g. you are calling a pass defense on 3rd & 9, and they are going to pass, pretty much no matter what their listed run % is, right? First down tendencies don't give us everything we'd need or want, but it IS useful and meaningful.

But I agree the presentation is misleading, and that it'd be way cooler if we could get situational data for 1st, 2nd, 3rd & short, 3rd & long.

[Sanchez_Mareno]

Dont you just need tendencies for 1st and 10, 2nd and 5 and 3rd and short. All the rest are skewed

[mrprice33]

Quote: Originally Posted by Aestis

Gotta agree with CM Hoe, weighing it heavily/exclusively toward 1st down is meaningful and helps me out. After that, especially 3rd down, the defensive play calling gets a lot more situational. E.g. you are calling a pass defense on 3rd & 9, and they are going to pass, pretty much no matter what their listed run % is, right? First down tendencies don't give us everything we'd need or want, but it IS useful and meaningful. But I agree the presentation is misleading, and that it'd be way cooler if we could get situational data for 1st, 2nd, 3rd & short, 3rd & long.

This is definitely where it has to get to. For the first year of this type of tracking, I can't be too upset by it being limited to first down. Oftentimes the best tendency tracking is 1st and 10 and within 14 points, so if that's what we get now, that's okay. I wish it was communicated better.

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

This is definitely where it has to get to. For the first year of this type of tracking, I can't be too upset by it being limited to first down. Oftentimes the best tendency tracking is 1st and 10 and within 14 points, so if that's what we get now, that's okay. I wish it was communicated better.

It's tough because I know most people tend to only man blitz on first down because that is a normal running down. Not sure there is a great answer other than specifically segmenting it out by down, but first down can give you a pretty weird view of an opponent.

[howboutdat]

Quote: Originally Posted by T4VERTS

It's tough because I know most people tend to only man blitz on first down because that is a normal running down. Not sure there is a great answer other than specifically segmenting it out by down, but first down can give you a pretty weird view of an opponent.

Agreed, its just not a good way to go about it , sorry , but just giving me first down info aint doing me that much good.Look, fact is, if thats all it is, they coulda said that when they announced it to begin with. They didnt, because they knew the community would not be that happy about it, so to hype up "how much they did" with the most resources for CFM ( for the second year in a row) needed to make it seem like it was alot more than it was.