i want this game to be more like chess match

[Smoke6]

The day EA gets their feet off the neck of these devs, is the day we will have this type of gameplay. The game is really not fun anymore and people have figured out how to make the game play more scripted than ever before.


I dont understand how you can be a fan of the sport but not like if it translated to the video game world like its played on in REAL LIFE!?

it makes no sense at all for the people who are against Chess match gameplay to even make that type of statement or live by it. If you enjoy football, then you should enjoy it in the virtual world the exact same way. I dont think I have seen a team put up of 50 or more points as an avg in one season besides maybe the saints and thats cutting it close!

[CM Hooe]

On-topic, as my first post in this thread was a bit of an aside comment:

As someone who has had completely different experiences playing the game based on what personnel I have had available to deploy, I contend that people who say Madden NFL 13 isn't already a thinking man's game aren't paying enough attention.

I've endured receivers with poor RRT ratings who can't beat man coverage on routes with sharp cuts, but the same players do just fine using their athleticism to break loose on simpler drag or fly routes, and as such I move them around my formations according to my play selection. I've suffered with terrible PBK offensive tackles who can't even stop the speed rush of an athletic rookie, let alone a premiere quarterback killer, forcing my offense to keep in an extra blocker on nearly every passing play. I've been forced to hide and even substitute strong run-stuffing safeties in coverage because the same safeties are poor in pass defense. I've designed the entirety of my current offense around a two tight end - one running back personnel group as to not immediately tip my hand presnap as to whether I'm running or passing, and also to feature my best two offensive skill players. I've redesigned the same offense in response to an injury to my starting quarterback, him and his ability to make every throw yielding to a more west-coast oriented passer who is just fine with short and intermediate passes but can't challenge the defense downfield. For the offseason free agency period of my league, I made it a point to identify specific players who fit what kind of team I wanted to build before the FA period started and made my bids accordingly (indeed, the offseason FA screen itself doesn't provide enough information to perform the evaluation and bidding steps simultaneously; in general I think Madden has a problem of relaying pertinent information to the user in a timely and efficient fashion, particularly in the roster management sections of the game). Before each game, I look at the roster and player ratings of each team I face before each game of my online league to identify strengths and weaknesses of my opponent's potential plan of attack, more notably identifying weaknesses of his defense so that I may craft my own offensive gameplan. I've established a defensive identity with my team, knowing I can't defend every possible throw, but I call my plays to defend against what I see as the most likely threats and adjust my defensive gameplan as the contest evolves.

Are some elements of the football gameplay not as well refined as we'd like? Sure, I'll readily concede that. Particularly line play foremost, with regard to interaction between the offensive line and defensive front; for example, there was a great post by LBrulez a few weeks ago telling how run defense should work in the game going forward, compared to how it does work right now which is more primitive and individual-based. In addition, though receiver-defensive back interaction is better than it has been in years' past, it's still lacking some key elements, notably the lack of any sort of defensive holding and infrequency of pass interference bothers me. That said, in my opinion there's more thinking in the game than people are giving it credit for, and while I admittedly probably go overboard with how much examining of rosters as I do, I argue that that some people either (less likely) aren't doing the requisite brain work or (more likely) are doing much of the mental processing without even realizing it.

[Cardot]

I agree with the OP and this is my biggest complaint with the game.

I don't go nearly as deep as many OS'ers with regards to football strategy, and I am quite mediocre at this game. But even as a simpleton, I can recognize that things like slants which are a common route are way too easy. And if the CPU runs outside, I am going to stuff it pretty much regardless of what play I call.

As a footnote, I am still play M12, so maybe it is different in '13??? But I wouldn't expect it as these things have been in EA football for years.

[ajb3313]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

On-topic, as my first post in this thread was a bit of an aside comment: As someone who has had completely different experiences playing the game based on what personnel I have had available to deploy, I contend that people who say Madden NFL 13 isn't already a thinking man's game aren't paying enough attention. I've endured receivers with poor RRT ratings who can't beat man coverage on routes with sharp cuts, but the same players do just fine using their athleticism to break loose on simpler drag or fly routes, and as such I move them around my formations according to my play selection. I've suffered with terrible PBK offensive tackles who can't even stop the speed rush of an athletic rookie, let alone a premiere quarterback killer, forcing my offense to keep in an extra blocker on nearly every passing play. I've been forced to hide and even substitute strong run-stuffing safeties in coverage because the same safeties are poor in pass defense. I've designed the entirety of my current offense around a two tight end - one running back personnel group as to not immediately tip my hand presnap as to whether I'm running or passing, and also to feature my best two offensive skill players. I've redesigned the same offense in response to an injury to my starting quarterback, him and his ability to make every throw yielding to a more west-coast oriented passer who is just fine with short and intermediate passes but can't challenge the defense downfield. For the offseason free agency period of my league, I made it a point to identify specific players who fit what kind of team I wanted to build before the FA period started and made my bids accordingly (indeed, the offseason FA screen itself doesn't provide enough information to perform the evaluation and bidding steps simultaneously; in general I think Madden has a problem of relaying pertinent information to the user in a timely and efficient fashion, particularly in the roster management sections of the game). Before each game, I look at the roster and player ratings of each team I face before each game of my online league to identify strengths and weaknesses of my opponent's potential plan of attack, more notably identifying weaknesses of his defense so that I may craft my own offensive gameplan. I've established a defensive identity with my team, knowing I can't defend every possible throw, but I call my plays to defend against what I see as the most likely threats and adjust my defensive gameplan as the contest evolves. Are some elements of the football gameplay not as well refined as we'd like? Sure, I'll readily concede that. Particularly line play foremost, with regard to interaction between the offensive line and defensive front; for example, there was a great post by LBrulez a few weeks ago telling how run defense should work in the game going forward, compared to how it does work right now which is more primitive and individual-based. In addition, though receiver-defensive back interaction is better than it has been in years' past, it's still lacking some key elements, notably the lack of any sort of defensive holding and infrequency of pass interference bothers me. That said, in my opinion there's more thinking in the game than people are giving it credit for, and while I admittedly probably go overboard with how much examining of rosters as I do, I argue that that some people either (less likely) aren't doing the requisite brain work or (more likely) are doing much of the mental processing without even realizing it.

I get what you're saying, but I think the counter-argument is that you don't actively have to do any of those things to win. I don't want to be the obnoxious guy who toots his own horn, but I haven't lost a game against the computer in... years. I couldn't even tell you when. And that is in spite of many, many house rules and self-imposed limitations I play with to try and level the playing field. I would wager that the folks who want a tougher, more strategy-oriented game are in similar positions where they win every game no matter how hard they make life on themselves.

I understand the value in the skill ratings of a player dictating which routes they run and in bringing in players to fit a team schematically; I understand this because, like you, I build my team and game plan around stuff like this. But the problem is that you don't have to do any of that. You can give me any roster of players you want, hide their ratings, and I will beat the computer with them. I'm not saying I'll beat a user-controlled team with them, because I don't know if I would. The good thing about user games -- when you're playing a user that hasn't figured out how to exploit all the cheese in the game -- is that those users tend to make adjustments and play the game with some semblance of a plan. But regardless, the point stands that regardless of all these other things that would seemingly require thought, ultimately none of it matters once a player reaches a certain skill level.

Now, having said all that, I do agree with you that there is an aspect of thinking that just needs to be executed by the player. Just because you can roll all over the CPU with marginal talent and three different plays doesn't mean you should. You can still build a team logically and formulate game plans even as you go 16-0 and win the Super Bowl every year. You can still set external goals for your teams that can be measured by things other than wins and losses, especially if those things are already a foregone conclusion.

[Trick13]

I think that when you look at how EA "manages" issues within the game you see why we don't have a more realistic and intelligent battle in terms of gameplay.

Take for instance a few years back when the deep ball was "easy money" especially when you had a very fast and tall WR at your disposal. People complained and whined (and rightfully so to a degree).

What you need to realize is that part of the issue was the DBs were not making any attempt to swat or pick off passes. Part of it was "off" coverage was severely glitched. I think, to a degree, there were people who never bothered to double cover, or shade the safeties, and so on who were the loudest complainers.

EA decides to "fix" the issue by making the receivers completely ignore the world around them - mostly the DBs, but even the ball with some regularity and to make the DBs very effective at tracking the ball and timing swat/INT attempts, and to top it off they changed something in the coding so that even an 84 spd DB would run stride for stride with elite speed WRs like 90+ percent of the time.

The ideal fix, IMHO would have been to tweak the logic of the deep zones, and tweak the DBs to be better at ball tracking/timing their pass defense attempts and yet leave the WRs alone. Had they done it that way you would have now much more interesting and compelling down field battles for the ball.

Nothing in the game sucks as much as having a "jump ball" situation and your elite WR (Fitz, Megatron, Bryant,...) watch the DB pick the dang ball off and do absolutely nothing.

It is just one example of unbalanced "fixes" that EA has made over and over again that create a "half step forward, three steps back" situation surrounding the gameplay.

A gap "nanos", "shake" blitzes, and well if you have played for any length of time you know about 15 others, where the "fix" created more frustration than it solved.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by ajb3313

I get what you're saying, but I think the counter-argument is that you don't actively have to do any of those things to win. I don't want to be the obnoxious guy who toots his own horn, but I haven't lost a game against the computer in... years. I couldn't even tell you when. And that is in spite of many, many house rules and self-imposed limitations I play with to try and level the playing field. I would wager that the folks who want a tougher, more strategy-oriented game are in similar positions where they win every game no matter how hard they make life on themselves. I understand the value in the skill ratings of a player dictating which routes they run and in bringing in players to fit a team schematically; I understand this because, like you, I build my team and game plan around stuff like this. But the problem is that you don't have to do any of that. You can give me any roster of players you want, hide their ratings, and I will beat the computer with them. I'm not saying I'll beat a user-controlled team with them, because I don't know if I would. The good thing about user games -- when you're playing a user that hasn't figured out how to exploit all the cheese in the game -- is that those users tend to make adjustments and play the game with some semblance of a plan. But regardless, the point stands that regardless of all these other things that would seemingly require thought, ultimately none of it matters once a player reaches a certain skill level. Now, having said all that, I do agree with you that there is an aspect of thinking that just needs to be executed by the player. Just because you can roll all over the CPU with marginal talent and three different plays doesn't mean you should. You can still build a team logically and formulate game plans even as you go 16-0 and win the Super Bowl every year. You can still set external goals for your teams that can be measured by things other than wins and losses, especially if those things are already a foregone conclusion.

I can sympathize with this a bit; the league that I play in has 20+ user-controlled teams in it, and by and large none of us lose to the CPU. The things that a human playing the game can and does take advantage of, personnel-wise, the CPU does not; the CPU never moves its receivers around a formation, the CPU doesn't consciously make formation substitutions for situational pass rushers; the CPU doesn't attempt to mask a poor coverage safety to make situational pass coverage substitutions; the CPU doesn't appear to consciously attempt to exploit any given personnel mismatches.

The CPU AI of this game could stand to get a lot better, from a deployment standpoint it's handicapped and thus easy to exploit even without any conscious effort to do so by the user.

[TreFacTor]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

I can sympathize with this a bit; the league that I play in has 20+ user-controlled teams in it, and by and large none of us lose to the CPU. The things that a human playing the game can and does take advantage of, personnel-wise, the CPU does not; the CPU never moves its receivers around a formation, the CPU doesn't consciously make formation substitutions for situational pass rushers; the CPU doesn't attempt to mask a poor coverage safety to make situational pass coverage substitutions; the CPU doesn't appear to consciously attempt to exploit any given personnel mismatches. The CPU AI of this game could stand to get a lot better, from a deployment standpoint it's handicapped and thus easy to exploit even without any conscious effort to do so by the user.

The ai along with gameplay have been my main fighting points on this game since it hit next gen. I have no idea how the game got increasingly easier but it most certainly did beginning in 08 in my opinion. The ai in Madden is as cheap as the ai in a shooter or puzzle game which makes it so simplistic that I can't lose to the cpu unless I'm trying. The cpu doesn't notice that I'm running audibles out of the same formation because I can read it's in cover 3 or cover 2. It can't recognize a mismatch and instead amplifies the attributes to compensate or simply predetermines what is going to happen in a rock paper scissors fashion. Beginning with Madden 10 when they put in the "on the fly ai" I've been begging for it to be replaced with some type of football technique, team specific defense or offense (Tampa at the time ran a cover 2 but in Madden they would constantly man up)...something that would take the place of the current "every team plays the same, psychic ai" but it hasn't changed.

Before I picked up Madden 12 (new $20), I read articles that said the ai was a challenge on pro...I get the game 9 months late and I can't see what the hell they're referring to. The same tactics work although some of the exploits were "handled" and I could run the same type of audible offense even on all madden (thank the universe there's still sliders). This isn't enjoyable to me and causes me to get bored after a handful of games. I found myself just playing Madden to see something resembling the NFL whenever I wanted an up to date fix. I still find myself playing other football games in Madden's place even though it's the top dog....that feels like going to the best restaurant in the world only to find out they only sell hot dogs. Where does the ai go from here and will it have any improvements (not tricks) in M14? The wait continues.

[hanzsomehanz]

To the OP - regarding a chess match analogy - I want to allude to the fastest checkmate in chess, it's called the 'fool's mate'.. it can be completed in two moves or four if you include the opponent's moves.

There are games and moments within the game that can be executed to the end with two moves or two reads. I find the chess game analogy to be too weak a comparison.

Sometimes your opponenent really is a fool. I can see though how we could use a more 'adaptive' AI system, Adaptive AI.

In my online matches for MUT I often give guys advice on mixing their plays up or taking small victories and not always going for it on fourth or always going for the deep ball.

In one recent game the opponent was exploiting the seams using Cruz and Jacoby Jones at TE and my defenders would always line up outside instead of head on or inside no matter my defensive audible adjustments. I resorted to using the D-linemen but it wasn't effective enough. I had to manually move my db's or lb's inside, depending on the formation called, and then further assign them to play inside with the coverage assignments. I then would manually control an 'off' player.

The point of the above is that the game engine was clearly not putting my players in the right position and my opponent was exploiting this. He could have done the same with a 98 Shannon Sharpe, two of them in the slot. I stopped his hustle. Considering that was always his primary, secondary, and jailbreak read - I really had to just stop that one play.. and I did but it required a lot of moves on my end..

Chess can be like this.. you gotta read into your opponent but in Football it's more fast paced and reads are happening at a layer of moments, the hut, the hand off, the rb read, etc..

I feel the AI does need to be more adaptive. It's not enough to play on All-Madden and have the CPU know your audible to run and adjust accordingly. It's generally about putting people in the right place, I guess.

The above is all an improvement suggestion though. I believe strategy already exists. Not every chess match is long and drawn out.. or intense.

The game, it's always decided by you and the opponent. So how you play affects the outcome too. Not just the CPU or your HUM opponent. I personally read into my HUM opponent's first move alot and that will tell me alot about the future moves they plan to take.

What is their fist play call? What side of the field did they attack? Did they hurry to the line? Did they audible? Did they PA or call a screen? Did they immediately go to a money route? That first move tells me a lot. That first sequence. Just like in Chess. You're not going to make a fool out of me..

As for the CPU.. only a more adaptive AI system could improve the HUM vs CPU experience. Giving the CPU the ability to read and react more 'intuitively' - I don't know if that is an easy thing to do on a play-calling level. Which is why perhaps we will see those superhuman plays at time just to put a stop to our command over the game or at least interrupt it lol.

I can personally lose to the CPU but I don't mind using the CPU for a training ground. I'll usually tame myself down too to try and experience different things from the CPU. Ultimately, I would love to learn from the HUM vs CPU games - I'd like to learn from how the CPU motions or audibles or bluffs a play etc - I would love to learn these things from the CPU as I graduate through the difficulty levels.