What will NOT be in the game?

[Cryolemon]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

I am a Bronco fan so I really don't care either way, but cheesers will be cheesers no matter what, there will always be a way. If this offense is going to be used next year IRL, it should be in the game.

Yeah, but that doesn't hide the fact that online players will complain about it. I personally hope it's in being a Dolphins fan, but it sometimes seems that the online players have a lot of influence on what goes into playbooks.

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

I would much rather see the offensive playbook increased and just have defenses played like real defenses. Eliminate the stupid spot-dropping lbs, the inability of db's to adjust to multiple vertical routes, the innaccurate adjustments to formation variancies, defenders actually using leverage and proper pursuit angles. Add whatever fronts you want, actual quarter's coverage, 4 deep, 2 deep cloud, 2 deep sky, 3 sky, 3 cloud, 3 buzz, man free, man under, bracket man, man blitz, some 3 under-3 deep fire zones and a few 4 under-2 deep fire zones for each front and imo, that's more than enough. Right now, there are probably just as many structurally unsound defenses as there are sound ones. Most of the defenses in the game sell-out towards one side of the center or on part of the field, which is completely unrealistic. Sound defense is about balance, gap integrity and intelligently overwhelming blocking and protection schemes while still maintaining a realistic expectation for field-coverage.

Well yeah, but in my opinion there are simply not enough defensive plays in the game. I also think there are not enough offensive plays either. All playbooks need to be much bigger.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

I can see the appeal of the all in one style. For me, the problem is that EA doesn't provide enough combinations. Too often, I get a hunch and want to call an appropriate defense only for that concept to be unavailable. EA would have to add many, many more concepts to make up for what tiered play calling would provide. I didn't mind 2K's style, nor would I be opposed to a back to front set up. It's not their particular set up I want. It's the ability to customize the defense that I'm looking for. And I'm not looking for anything as indepth as assigning each defender individually. Tiering the call in order of personnel, front, stunts, blitzes then coverage (or personnel, front, coverage, blitzes, stunts) would be ideal. But I'd be OK with other methods that allowed for similar flexibility.

I'm not questioning your ability to build structurally sound defenses in a level by level method, I don't know you and you may be more than capable. But the fact is, a vast majority of the people that play this game really have no to very little technical knowledge of the game, both from a strategical standpoint and from a technique one. Making the user pick defenses in a tiered manner will just lead to an extreme amount of frustration, because users don't really understand how to "balance-up" a defense so that it is sound against everything. I really believe you can already do this anyway, with all of the different types of defensive playmaker and audible options, not only from an individual standpoint, but also from a group one.

As for being far too few defenses in playbooks, I'm not sure how many defenses you think a team goes into a game with, by I think you are vastly overestimating that number. A normal team might go into a game with 15 or so base personnel defenses, 30-40 sub defenses and a handful of short yardage defenses. You have to remember that each defense has to be able to adjust to a variety of different formations and some formations force the defense to check coverage or call offa blitz or adjust the defensive structure entirely. The main thing is for the defensive players to just play better defense, more defenses are not needed imo.

[carnalnirvana]

bottom line there are more casual fans than there are hardcore nuts.

The devs(bless their soul) try to put up with you guys but lets be honest. If they made the game we all suggested on this board you would go to gamestop and see a million used games on the shelf.

there has to be balance, for every 5 hardcore franchise gamers there are probably 20 one play abusers who only play online.

i think there are 3 TOP things we all want

1. more detailed sliders
2. animations
3. fewer bugs

i left out presentation because this i purely subjective there is no way to get this right.

so lets lay off these guys a little.

[Exonerated]

Quote: Originally Posted by carnalnirvava

bottom line there are more casual fans than there are hardcore nuts. The devs(bless their soul) try to put up with you guys but lets be honest. If they made the game we all suggested on this board you would go to gamestop and see a million used games on the shelf. there has to be balance, for every 5 hardcore franchise gamers there are probably 20 one play abusers who only play online. i think there are 3 TOP things we all want 1. more detailed sliders 2. animations 3. fewer bugs i left out presentation because this i purely subjective there is no way to get this right. so lets lay off these guys a little.

Agreed with the hardcores are the majorities. The casuals far outweight the hardcores.

All the haters lose sight they the game caters to these guys, and puts up with the hardcores because they complain so much and every friggin internet forum and every possible site that lets you post.

[Cryolemon]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

A normal team might go into a game with 15 or so base personnel defenses, 30-40 sub defenses and a handful of short yardage defenses. You have to remember that each defense has to be able to adjust to a variety of different formations and some formations force the defense to check coverage or call offa blitz or adjust the defensive structure entirely. The main thing is for the defensive players to just play better defense, more defenses are not needed imo.

That is still up to about 55 - 60 plays. I'm not sure how many defensive plays are in each madden playbook, but it seems less than that.

Offensive playbooks are a different kettle of fish entirely, there is no doubt at all that they are far too small, by a factor of 5 at least in my opinion. Yep, I did just say there should be about 450 500 plays in each playbook.

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

I'm not questioning your ability to build structurally sound defenses in a level by level method, I don't know you and you may be more than capable. But the fact is, a vast majority of the people that play this game really have no to very little technical knowledge of the game, both from a strategical standpoint and from a technique one. Making the user pick defenses in a tiered manner will just lead to an extreme amount of frustration, because users don't really understand how to "balance-up" a defense so that it is sound against everything. I really believe you can already do this anyway, with all of the different types of defensive playmaker and audible options, not only from an individual standpoint, but also from a group one.

I'm quite capable and so are many others.

And I don't believe there's a defense that's sound against everything. Coordinators create concepts to stop plays they expect at a given time.

I agree you can accomplish some of this with audibles. A few things though... your opponent has to give you time to get the audibles in and I don't want my call dependent on whether my opponent gives me time to piece it together. There are many things that can't be done with the audibles... stunts for example. And defenses are not called this way at any level of football. My little league team called fronts & coverage separately.

Lastly, the same folks you claim don't know how to create defensive concepts are doing just that with the audibles. That's what folks use them for. I've played people that are audibling before the teams even get to the line. I did this myself. Most of the time these adjustments aren't adjustments at all. They're preconceived ideas that couldn't be called in the huddle because of the play calling method & limited combinations.

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

As for being far too few defenses in playbooks, I'm not sure how many defenses you think a team goes into a game with, by I think you are vastly overestimating that number. A normal team might go into a game with 15 or so base personnel defenses, 30-40 sub defenses and a handful of short yardage defenses. You have to remember that each defense has to be able to adjust to a variety of different formations and some formations force the defense to check coverage or call offa blitz or adjust the defensive structure entirely. The main thing is for the defensive players to just play better defense, more defenses are not needed imo.

My point is this... Indy, for example, plays Cover 2 80% of the time. But they do many, many things out of it. They blitz any combination of LBs, they use a variety of stunts, they zone blitz, ect. But in Madden's playbook, there are a very limited number of cover 2 concepts. If you're in a 4-3 normal front, for example, there are 2-3 Cover 2 concepts available. In real life, Indy combines many more stunt & blitz combinations out of their base defense that we don't have access to.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: Originally Posted by carnalnirvava

The devs(bless their soul) try to put up with you guys but lets be honest. If they made the game we all suggested on this board you would go to gamestop and see a million used games on the shelf.

I totally disagree. Most of what the hardcore fan is asking for are things the casual will either:

A. Not notice because they never understood or realized there was a problem in the first place.

B. Notice and not care much about it because it doesn't stop them from enjoying the game.

The only time a dramatic negative effect would take place is if the game is no longer accessible to the casual gamer. But modes and sliders should ensure that this would never be an issue.

Quote: Originally Posted by carnalnirvava

there has to be balance, for every 5 hardcore franchise gamers there are probably 20 one play abusers who only play online.

True, but they've had about 5 years to add enough modes and sliders to keep both sides happy. They just chose not to do that and we're now where we are. Right now there is no balance, this game has little or nothing to keep the hardcore happy and is instead heavily weighed towards the casual person with no understanding of football. We see the possibility of that changing, I just hope they've loaded this game with more options/sliders/on&off's. This game desperately needs it.

Quote: Originally Posted by carnalnirvava

i left out presentation because this i purely subjective there is no way to get this right.

Subjective yes but only in the sense of it being good or bad, but compared to a game built in 2004 (won't say the name), it's missing both basic and critical elements that can be itemized by number, which moves it from opinion to fact in regards to it's robustness. It's empty by comparison, and empty compared to the other EA Sports titles on the market. Some may find that emptiness to be better, but I'd have to question everything a person with that view would have to say on pretty much everything from then on, lol.

Another thing is that even though opinions on these things vary, I'd bet the farm that if say NBC or FOX started presenting the game the way Madden in this generation has been presented, people would be in WTH mode and people in charge of it would be out on their butts.

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheWatcher

I totally disagree. Most of what the hardcore fan is asking for are things the casual will either: A. Not notice because they never understood or realized there was a problem in the first place. B. Notice and not care much about it because it doesn't stop them from enjoying the game. The only time a dramatic negative effect would take place is if the game is no longer accessible to the casual gamer. But modes and sliders should ensure that this would never be an issue.

This is in part what I was trying to discuss in this thread if anyone else cares to contribute. Though their style may have to change a bit, a better simulation is not going to alienate casual gamers. IMO, acessibility is effected by difficulty level & controls. As long as they can pick up the game and blow out the CPU or have fun against a friend, they're fine.

I agree, by definition, a casual fan either doesn't notice or doesn't care about most of what's talked about here. I don't believe a casual gamer would be turned off by realistic trap blocking or a QB pocket, for example. In fact, I think they'd welcome it. It would look more like what they see on Sundays. And I think it would make the game easier in some ways.