Improving upon the new Franchise features moving forward

[stinkubus]

Quote: Originally Posted by StayPlation82

i think draft classes should stay the way they are as default. personally i don't want to spend 20 plus hours creating it for it to be randomized. but with all things video games, giving people options is always the key. menus come and go. i'd like news to be at the forefront. captains are a cool addition. i think it's cool as an aesthetic. like the OP, player morale, team morale and team chemistry would be nice additions. but then you'd need to build out the roles system again and i don't think that's improving the feature but creating a new one. archetypes are a good one. highly debated and whatnot. i think there should be more of them per position if we're talking moving forward. more importantly i think a lot of convo moves towards fitting a scheme and not letting the user create their own. i think the hard rules are good for the CPU though. Seattle's C3 isn't the same as a one from the 90s. maybe i'd like all my DLs to be speed pass rushers. i can do it now but the game tells me i'm not in the box like i should be. a few people hit on it. it's all tied to AI, CPU roster management and CPU play calling is paramount. teams don't have an identity. when you create a playbook and it has all of these stars next to plays. Seattle's defensive playbook should be 70-80% C3 plays! the base is there for play calling, it just needs to be expanded upon, tweaked and used for the CPU. as far as roster management, i think some hard rules need to be in place. and most of it revolves around the QB. having an 86 QB signed in free agency when an 85 is already on the roster?? while 4 teams in the league have 68-72 rated qbs or no QB going into the draft? just make a rule for QBs to start. then everything else.

As I've been desperately trying to point out in my other posts ITT, if the CPU actually called C3 at a 70-80% clip, regardless of the quality of the roster used, EA would have to rely on inducing several artificial plays per game to get results that users would be happy with.

If the CPU deploys it against the human then crazy blocksheds are going to be necessary from the AI otherwise you're going to have guys running free all over the field. If the human deploys it against the AI then they will need to commit several ridiculous, unforced errors to give the human any chance at getting a stop.

Not even Earl Thomas can save a scheme that leaves simple hi lo reads on both sidelines *and* the shallow to intermediate middle wide open on every play.

[StayPlation82]

Quote: Originally Posted by stinkubus

As I've been desperately trying to point out in my other posts ITT, if the CPU actually called C3 at a 70-80% clip, regardless of the quality of the roster used, EA would have to rely on inducing several artificial plays per game to get results that users would be happy with. If the CPU deploys it against the human then crazy blocksheds are going to be necessary from the AI otherwise you're going to have guys running free all over the field. If the human deploys it against the AI then they will need to commit several ridiculous, unforced errors to give the human any chance at getting a stop. Not even Earl Thomas can save a scheme that leaves simple hi lo reads on both sidelines *and* the shallow to intermediate middle wide open on every play.

No I got what you’ve been saying. And though they do go hand in hand we’re not talking gameplay, specifically, at the moment. Yes Cpu play calling could be lumped In with gameplay but it’s more to the point of franchise schemes and what the AI does building upon the idea of schemes. I’d rather have the cover 3 because it’s specific to Pete Carroll and his tree than to see the same defense from every team. Of course do both! But I’m trying to respond to the OP.

[stinkubus]

You can't separate the franchise questions from game play unless you are simulating 100% of the games.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by stinkubus

As I've been desperately trying to point out in my other posts ITT, if the CPU actually called C3 at a 70-80% clip, regardless of the quality of the roster used, EA would have to rely on inducing several artificial plays per game to get results that users would be happy with. If the CPU deploys it against the human then crazy blocksheds are going to be necessary from the AI otherwise you're going to have guys running free all over the field. If the human deploys it against the AI then they will need to commit several ridiculous, unforced errors to give the human any chance at getting a stop. Not even Earl Thomas can save a scheme that leaves simple hi lo reads on both sidelines *and* the shallow to intermediate middle wide open on every play.

Did you see the YT vid by Litzeout (sp?)( EA gamechanger) about improvements to C3 in M19 ?

https://youtu.be/mRg_U3-Ig0Y

[stinkubus]

I had watched that, but thank you for posting because I did not recall the segment on improved deep zone logic. The DBs also seemed to be turning and running with verticals appropriately, as opposed to M18 where they stayed in their back peddle for way too long.

He talked about deep zones playing 10 yard outs if there was no deeper threat to their sideline, but he didn't show it. I hope that's true.

If it all comes together then I'd have no objection to a C3 scheme getting added to the mix. In fact, I'd welcome it because the more variety the better, imo.

It was just frustrating as hell in M18 to have a good team like Jax, Min, Sea, etc. turn into total pushovers because of the inferiority of their game plan. In the odd game where they would favor MOFO defenses they were legit difficult to play against even on all-pro/stock settings. The secondary is everywhere. When they favored MOFC defenses it was just to easy to torch them by picking on anyone other than the 91 ZCV guys.

[jfsolo]

Quote: Originally Posted by stinkubus

I had watched that, but thank you for posting because I did not recall the segment on improved deep zone logic. The DBs also seemed to be turning and running with verticals appropriately, as opposed to M18 where they stayed in their back peddle for way too long. He talked about deep zones playing 10 yard outs if there was no deeper threat to their sideline, but he didn't show it. I hope that's true. If it all comes together then I'd have no objection to a C3 scheme getting added to the mix. In fact, I'd welcome it because the more variety the better, imo. It was just frustrating as hell in M18 to have a good team like Jax, Min, Sea, etc. turn into total pushovers because of the inferiority of their game plan. In the odd game where they would favor MOFO defenses they were legit difficult to play against even on all-pro/stock settings. The secondary is everywhere. When they favored MOFC defenses it was just to easy to torch them by picking on anyone other than the 91 ZCV guys.

In Clint's interview with SGO a month ago he emphasizes that they did a lot of AI work on Cover 3 and Cover 4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwVGgG5q5tA

5:35 is where he talks about it.