Better patch & tuner management is badly needed for NCAA Series

[Gotmadskillzson]

Quote: Originally Posted by aerovt

Good post, but I think this is only part of the issue. The other part is that the low end of ratings aren't portrayed as low enough on the field in this game. If someone has a 0 pass block rating, they shouldnt be able to block ANYONE. As it is now, someone with a 0 pass block has 70% success, while someone with 99 ratings has 85% success or whatever. This makes standout players for most positions not have any major impact on the game as they arent really all that different from even the worst players. This issue applies to pretty much all the ratings other than speed. There just isnt a noticeable enough difference between good and bad players as the ratings only kind of matter.

The reason this exist is because EA don't use the whole number scale. Their number scale is 40 to 99. Look at the ratings in the game that is important to that position. You won't see anybody rated lower then a 40 in a rating that applies to their position.

Which is why you could give somebody a 0 and they can still hold their own. The game isn't programmed to recognize a rating lower then 40. So instead of having good, average and bad players, you just have good and average. Nobody ratings wise is ever considered bad.

Until they widen the scale, you can never have bad players in the game. As it stands now the bulk of the roster players have ratings in the 70s and 80s for ratings that apply towards their position. Even on the lower schools you don't many rated below 50 in anything.

You can't have a low end unless there is code there to support the low end and currently there is no such code in place.

[orthostud23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gotmadskillzson

I would widen the curve of when certain types of animations and AI logic would trigger. Instead of using the 40 to 99 scale which is what EA currently uses, I would use 0-99. Then I would tie certain animations among gaps of ratings. For example: 0-9 10-19 etc. That way there would be more variety of different animations triggering. Sure EA does this now to a point, but they are clumped up on the very high end of the scale. This is kind of unrealistic and unbalanced to have it clumped up on the high end because in college very few teams going to have players rated in the mid 90s for any rating. Then I will also make ratings not only determine how well they perform a certain move, but also how often they would do it. Or if time permitted I would make up a list of tendencies for different ratings that determined how often a player perform a certain move. So not only would there be player ratings, but a scale of tendencies as well. And this tendency scale would be from 0-99 as well. 0-19 - wouldn't attempt 20-39 - every once in a while 40-69 - often 70-89- A lot 90-99 - A hell of a lot and chains it together with other special moves. Special move combination if you will - Spin, juke, stiff arm Ball Carrier Vision would be more like an invisible vision cone for ball carriers. 0-99 scale 0-24 - sees 1/4 of the field, within 5 yards in front of him 25-49 - sees 1/2 of the field, within 10 yards in front of him 50-74 - sees 2/3 of the field, beyond 10 yards in front of him 75-100 sees all of the field, beyond 10 yards in front of him The amount of the field the ball carrier can see would determine how he reacts. The yards of front him is more a symbol for the layer of depth a person would see. Take a freshmen for example, his eyes would just lock on to the nearest defender at the line of scrimmage level. A sophmore would be able to see beyond that and see the 2nd level of defenders, the Linebackers, so he would be thinking 1 move ahead. A vet would see all 3 levels. The defensive line, the linebackers and the safeties. So therefore he is thinking 2 moves ahead. So the higher the ball carrier vision rating, being he can see more of the field, he would be more prone to weave in and out of the running lanes. More prone to cutting back clear across the field because he could clearly see all the defenders are running hard towards one side of the field, but the back side is unguarded. Elusiveness rating would be eliminated. Not needed. His ball carrier vision rating and juke rating/tendency rating would determine how shifty a player is. Spin and stiff arm would be treated the same way as juke, follow the same format. Truck rating would be eliminated. Like elusiveness rating, it isn't needed. I would let the player type determine if a runner lower his shoulder pad or try to duck under tackles. I would keep it simple, power back, lower the shoulder. Speed backs would duck and balanced backs would alternate between both. Route running would really mean how well the player runs his route. So if a player is rated low, he would be prone to running the wrong route, turning the wrong direction, breaking too soon or breaking too late. Return rating, eliminated. That is why we have ball carrier vision rating for. I would bring back pass block footwork and run block footwork. Reason being some players rely on brute strength for blocking, while the smaller players of military academies rely on leverage and technique. They can hold their own because they have quick feet. Throw on the run rating need to be added. I would use it the same way Madden uses it, to determine how big of hit of accuracy you take when you throw on the run. Short, medium and deep accuracy need to be added. Reason being there need to be some separation among quarterbacks. Some are good at short passes and some are terrible at short passes but great at deep passes. Awareness would control how the player analyzes the field. Make him aware of the situation that is going on around him. Make him aware of the down and distance. Aware of the score. Aware of the personnel on his team and aware of the personnel on the opposing team. So lets say the QB had 80 awareness, he would know who the best player is on his team and would look to call plays that would get them the ball more often during the game, especially during late game situations where they are down and need to score. A 90 awareness QB will not only know that, but also know who the weakest defender on the opposing team was and look to create mismatches for that defender. I would treat agility more like a balance rating. The higher it is, the better you can keep or regain your balance if you are tripped up or try to change directions quickly. On the flip side a low agility player would stumble if they tried to change directions quickly. Pursuit rating would be treated the same way as ball carrier vision, same format, only for defensive players of course. Man Coverage rating would be treated the same way as route running rating. With the addition of a good rated player would use his body more to keep the WR in check. In real football it isn't just a foot race between 2 players going from point A to point B with the fastest player wins. The defensive back uses his body, his arms, his shoulder to slow down and re-route the WR. Power hit shouldn't be a rating and should be just a yes or no option. Tackling logic would be revamped. Smaller players would go for the legs more often. Bigger players like linemen would go high and linebackers would go for more wrap tackles around the waist and not the shoulder pad. Also there would of a struggle in the tackle animation. When 2 players collide it wouldn't be an instant both go down. But more of a both pushing up against each other with the bigger much stronger player gradually pushing the only player back and into the ground. And if both players are big and strong, it should be a stalemate with everybody standing and the ref blowing the play dead for forward progress.

Best answer to a question that I have read on these forums. Now we need EA to hire you as a consultant or FTE. How many years would it take for something like you mentioned to be implemented though?? Is re-writing all the numerics possible in one cycle?? I absolutely would love a game that had this kind of depth!! GREAT POST!!

[EmmdotFrisk]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gotmadskillzson

I would widen the curve of when certain types of animations and AI logic would trigger. Instead of using the 40 to 99 scale which is what EA currently uses, I would use 0-99. Then I would tie certain animations among gaps of ratings. For example: 0-9 10-19 etc. That way there would be more variety of different animations triggering. Sure EA does this now to a point, but they are clumped up on the very high end of the scale. This is kind of unrealistic and unbalanced to have it clumped up on the high end because in college very few teams going to have players rated in the mid 90s for any rating. Then I will also make ratings not only determine how well they perform a certain move, but also how often they would do it. Or if time permitted I would make up a list of tendencies for different ratings that determined how often a player perform a certain move. So not only would there be player ratings, but a scale of tendencies as well. And this tendency scale would be from 0-99 as well. 0-19 - wouldn't attempt 20-39 - every once in a while 40-69 - often 70-89- A lot 90-99 - A hell of a lot and chains it together with other special moves. Special move combination if you will - Spin, juke, stiff arm Ball Carrier Vision would be more like an invisible vision cone for ball carriers. 0-99 scale 0-24 - sees 1/4 of the field, within 5 yards in front of him 25-49 - sees 1/2 of the field, within 10 yards in front of him 50-74 - sees 2/3 of the field, beyond 10 yards in front of him 75-100 sees all of the field, beyond 10 yards in front of him The amount of the field the ball carrier can see would determine how he reacts. The yards of front him is more a symbol for the layer of depth a person would see. Take a freshmen for example, his eyes would just lock on to the nearest defender at the line of scrimmage level. A sophmore would be able to see beyond that and see the 2nd level of defenders, the Linebackers, so he would be thinking 1 move ahead. A vet would see all 3 levels. The defensive line, the linebackers and the safeties. So therefore he is thinking 2 moves ahead. So the higher the ball carrier vision rating, being he can see more of the field, he would be more prone to weave in and out of the running lanes. More prone to cutting back clear across the field because he could clearly see all the defenders are running hard towards one side of the field, but the back side is unguarded. Elusiveness rating would be eliminated. Not needed. His ball carrier vision rating and juke rating/tendency rating would determine how shifty a player is. Spin and stiff arm would be treated the same way as juke, follow the same format. Truck rating would be eliminated. Like elusiveness rating, it isn't needed. I would let the player type determine if a runner lower his shoulder pad or try to duck under tackles. I would keep it simple, power back, lower the shoulder. Speed backs would duck and balanced backs would alternate between both. Route running would really mean how well the player runs his route. So if a player is rated low, he would be prone to running the wrong route, turning the wrong direction, breaking too soon or breaking too late. Return rating, eliminated. That is why we have ball carrier vision rating for. I would bring back pass block footwork and run block footwork. Reason being some players rely on brute strength for blocking, while the smaller players of military academies rely on leverage and technique. They can hold their own because they have quick feet. Throw on the run rating need to be added. I would use it the same way Madden uses it, to determine how big of hit of accuracy you take when you throw on the run. Short, medium and deep accuracy need to be added. Reason being there need to be some separation among quarterbacks. Some are good at short passes and some are terrible at short passes but great at deep passes. Awareness would control how the player analyzes the field. Make him aware of the situation that is going on around him. Make him aware of the down and distance. Aware of the score. Aware of the personnel on his team and aware of the personnel on the opposing team. So lets say the QB had 80 awareness, he would know who the best player is on his team and would look to call plays that would get them the ball more often during the game, especially during late game situations where they are down and need to score. A 90 awareness QB will not only know that, but also know who the weakest defender on the opposing team was and look to create mismatches for that defender. I would treat agility more like a balance rating. The higher it is, the better you can keep or regain your balance if you are tripped up or try to change directions quickly. On the flip side a low agility player would stumble if they tried to change directions quickly. Pursuit rating would be treated the same way as ball carrier vision, same format, only for defensive players of course. Man Coverage rating would be treated the same way as route running rating. With the addition of a good rated player would use his body more to keep the WR in check. In real football it isn't just a foot race between 2 players going from point A to point B with the fastest player wins. The defensive back uses his body, his arms, his shoulder to slow down and re-route the WR. Power hit shouldn't be a rating and should be just a yes or no option. Tackling logic would be revamped. Smaller players would go for the legs more often. Bigger players like linemen would go high and linebackers would go for more wrap tackles around the waist and not the shoulder pad. Also there would of a struggle in the tackle animation. When 2 players collide it wouldn't be an instant both go down. But more of a both pushing up against each other with the bigger much stronger player gradually pushing the only player back and into the ground. And if both players are big and strong, it should be a stalemate with everybody standing and the ref blowing the play dead for forward progress.

While I like this concept do you know why its 40-99 and not 1-100? 360 and PS3 couldn't handle this amount of compressed animations.

What would you do if you were limited to the same amount of animations as currently in Madden/NCAA?

[Gotmadskillzson]

Quote: Originally Posted by EmmdotFrisk

While I like this concept do you know why its 40-99 and not 1-100? 360 and PS3 couldn't handle this amount of compressed animations. What would you do if you were limited to the same amount of animations as currently in Madden/NCAA?

I would make the animations & AI more contextual base. For situations that I come across where it should be a certain animation that should play out and it doesn't already exist, I would create one for it.

If there is one but it just doesn't play out correctly, I will just alter the existing animation. Some times it be as simple as speeding the animation up to play out quicker and some times it is the opposite, some animations need to be slowed down.

Then you have some animations it would be a matter of re-adjusting the limbs on the player model for their leg or back can bend a little more in this situation or in another situation to not bend so much or widen their stance a little more when they do this.

When it comes to tackling, I would lower the targeting contact points on player models. Currently they are too high up on players. I would lower them to the waist and legs area. Limit the ones high up on the shoulder pad and collar line area.

Ball carry rating idea would stand as is, only modified to fit with in the 40 to 99 scale. That I know can fit because EA had it in their game before, only it was just used for QBs and their passing.

Take screen plays for example. The reason why it ends up as a sack for the CPU most of the time is because the drop back speed of the QB is too slow and it needs to be sped up. Not only that, the QB need to drift AWAY from the play side of the field when he is dropping back. As it stands now they just go back in a straight line and stand there.

Then if you have the issue of scrambling QBs who treat screen plays like a regular passing play and they end up scrambling up the middle of the field directly into the defensive tackles.

On play action roll out plays, a lot of the times the CPU QB don't fully roll out. Instead they side step 4 steps to the side and just stand there. When in reality they should be rolling completely outside of the pocket and throwing on the run and if there is nobody open they should just turn up field. But you must completely roll out to sell the play.

Problem with option plays is the speed. Blockers take too long getting to the outside, QB takes too long moving outside. Then the blockers on the outside don't cut block their defenders or at least seal them off.

Second part of the problem is the backside defenders move across the field and recognize the play too quickly. It is as though they get a speed burst and they get in on the play as soon as the play side defenders do. That isn't realistic.

[EmmdotFrisk]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gotmadskillzson

I would make the animations & AI more contextual base. For situations that I come across where it should be a certain animation that should play out and it doesn't already exist, I would create one for it. If there is one but it just doesn't play out correctly, I will just alter the existing animation. Some times it be as simple as speeding the animation up to play out quicker and some times it is the opposite, some animations need to be slowed down. Then you have some animations it would be a matter of re-adjusting the limbs on the player model for their leg or back can bend a little more in this situation or in another situation to not bend so much or widen their stance a little more when they do this. When it comes to tackling, I would lower the targeting contact points on player models. Currently they are too high up on players. I would lower them to the waist and legs area. Limit the ones high up on the shoulder pad and collar line area. Ball carry rating idea would stand as is, only modified to fit with in the 40 to 99 scale. That I know can fit because EA had it in their game before, only it was just used for QBs and their passing. Take screen plays for example. The reason why it ends up as a sack for the CPU most of the time is because the drop back speed of the QB is too slow and it needs to be sped up. Not only that, the QB need to drift AWAY from the play side of the field when he is dropping back. As it stands now they just go back in a straight line and stand there. Then if you have the issue of scrambling QBs who treat screen plays like a regular passing play and they end up scrambling up the middle of the field directly into the defensive tackles. On play action roll out plays, a lot of the times the CPU QB don't fully roll out. Instead they side step 4 steps to the side and just stand there. When in reality they should be rolling completely outside of the pocket and throwing on the run and if there is nobody open they should just turn up field. But you must completely roll out to sell the play. Problem with option plays is the speed. Blockers take too long getting to the outside, QB takes too long moving outside. Then the blockers on the outside don't cut block their defenders or at least seal them off. Second part of the problem is the backside defenders move across the field and recognize the play too quickly. It is as though they get a speed burst and they get in on the play as soon as the play side defenders do. That isn't realistic.

The animations are purely contextual right now so can you explain this further?

As for tackling, why so low on the player models? These should be dynamic depending on the ball carrier and tackler. The baseline is to put the facemask in the chest but Brandon Carr isn't going to try that on Brandon Jacobs, he would go low.

As for screen passes, I like the new 1 step drops for NCAA. Do you think those are ineffective?

The goal of a rollout is to get the secondary and LB's to commit to one side of the field. For example, If I am playing MLB and everything in front of me crashes right, I may key on my guards to make sure none of them are pulling the opposite way, if they aren't, I would crash towards the play side. This is where the naked boot is high risk, high reward. As soon as I commit to steps, the TE on a delayed drag crosses my face and I'm screwed. PA in general needs a rework because our defenders don't fully commit.

[Gotmadskillzson]

Quote: Originally Posted by EmmdotFrisk

The animations are purely contextual right now so can you explain this further? As for tackling, why so low on the player models? These should be dynamic depending on the ball carrier and tackler. The baseline is to put the facemask in the chest but Brandon Carr isn't going to try that on Brandon Jacobs, he would go low. As for screen passes, I like the new 1 step drops for NCAA. Do you think those are ineffective? The goal of a rollout is to get the secondary and LB's to commit to one side of the field. For example, If I am playing MLB and everything in front of me crashes right, I may key on my guards to make sure none of them are pulling the opposite way, if they aren't, I would crash towards the play side. This is where the naked boot is high risk, high reward. As soon as I commit to steps, the TE on a delayed drag crosses my face and I'm screwed. PA in general needs a rework because our defenders don't fully commit.

The timing of the animations are off and some are too stiff. Take the QB movement for example, it is too stiff and rigid. Need more flexible joints in their ankles and lower back area. No human runs stiff like that nor do they move around the pocket as stiff either.

Then there are times where the ball carrier should spin, he instead jukes and vice versa. More often then not they would attempt a speed move too late and end up being tackled during mid spin. Plus there are times when the RB will juke too early for no reason, which causes him unnecessary slow down which results in either the hole closing up or defenders to catch up to him because he did a juke when he didn't have to.

You will see a lot behind the line of scrimmage. There will be LB about 4 yards away and a blocker in front of the RB and he will juke right then and there, even though the LB is 4 yards away and there is a blocker in between the ball carrier and the LB.

WR quick screens are some what fine with the 1 step drop back for those. Even though the other WR should do a much better job at blocking the defensive back and the QB should throw more a of flat trajectory bullet pass. The ball gets out there too slow and it has too much of an arc for it. Because of that arc and slow velocity more often then not the defensive back has enough time to run over there and intercept the pass. I see way too many interceptions on quick screens.

Same thing can be said for HB screens. The ball velocity is too slow and too much of an arc. Ball needs to get there faster.

The reason for being low on tackles is because the triggering for dynamic tackles is off and don't work most of the time. Too often you will see a defensive back try to tackle high on a RB that out weighs him. Way too many hit stick tackle animation play out. The majority of the tackles should be wrap tackles. And if both players are running at full speed, it sudden be an instant crash everybody just automatically fall down.

There need to be a way for more then 1 person to grab on to the same player when they are tackling him. There should be some sort of pushing the pile action going on with players gradually eventually falling down to the ground.

Far as defenders not fully committing, that has been a problem for years. They need to fully commit, it would make the option offense, WR vs DB interaction and special teams more organic and natural flowing.

When you running the ball and try to juke a defender, being that he don't fully commit the defender is never thrown off track or slowed down. He is still running full speed directly at you. Same thing when you cut back, they cut back.

You need defenders to commit to help out with the fake out logic. If nobody gets faked out, there is no point in attempting fake out moves.

Some sort of faked out, thrown off balance animation need to be made for players. Reason I say players and not just defenders is because when a defensive end does a spin move, the offensive tackle isn't faked out at all, hell he doesn't even react to it.

[TDenverFan]

Quote: Originally Posted by EmmdotFrisk

Snip

Just wanted to say thanks for commenting on these threads. I think we all appreciate when you guys take the time to talk with us about what works/doesn't work and new ideas for future games.

[Gotmadskillzson]

Quote: Originally Posted by orthostud23

Best answer to a question that I have read on these forums. Now we need EA to hire you as a consultant or FTE. How many years would it take for something like you mentioned to be implemented though?? Is re-writing all the numerics possible in one cycle?? I absolutely would love a game that had this kind of depth!! GREAT POST!!

All depends on the size of the team. But I would say if the team is big enough they could do it all in one cycle. Considering they gave Madden physics in ONE cycle, anything is possible if you throw enough money and resources behind it.

But more then likely it would be split up into a 2 year cycle, depending on what other plans they want to focus on that they think will sell the game.