Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Senator Palmer
    MVP
    • Jul 2008
    • 3314

    #1

    Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

    I know that formation subs have been on the community wishlist pretty much since Madden came to Gen 3 platforms. Now I have no idea whether they will be available in Madden 17, but I wanted to expand on the difference between formation subs and custom packages and why I think custom packages is the way to go.

    As many of you know, the NFL more than ever is a game up matchups driven by an eclectic mix of personnel. Take a team just as an example like the Atlanta Falcons who have 246 lb. Vic Beasley playing as their open-side end. Now obviously at that weight you don't want to run him out there crashing into 300 plus pound tackles 65 snaps a game. You want to specialize his role, you want him to play in certain packages and not in others.

    Now this is where Madden comes in. In a formation sub, as it worked in NCAA at least, you could place a player in a formation but the problem was that he would stay in that ENTIRE formation and all of its sets no matter what. So if I put a player in a position in Nickel that player would stay in that same spot in Nickel Normal, Wide-9, Nickel Strong, Nickel 3-3-5, whatever. And the player didn't move or sub even when you accessed the packages on the right stick. The only way to take the player out was to manually sub, which to me went against the point of formation subs in the first place.

    I may want Vic Beasley as a 3rd down rusher in a Wide-9 set, but I may not want him to play in Nickel Strong because that's more of a run stopping set. But with formation subs you're stuck with Beasley in every Nickel set.

    This is where custom packages comes in because I can create my own packages within the sets. Now I can have Courtney Upshaw who is listed as an OLB on Atlanta's roster, but is 272 lbs. -- now I can create a run-stopping package in Nickel Normal where he plays defensive end, along with Tyson Jackson, another stout run defender with no pass rush traits as a defensive tackle and have Derrick Shelby as the other defensive end. Then when I want to get after it and close a game out I got my pass rushing Nickel Normal package with Beasley on one edge, Derrick Shelby slid inside as a tackle in place of Tyson Jackson, with Adrian Clayborn coming off the bench as the other end... (pretty much the way Dan Quinn has indicated).

    Now Madden has done a really good job the past few years of adding default packages to reflect actual personnel, but it has hit a wall and isn't able to keep up with what's going on. Like the Raiders defense. One week Khalil Mack is a defensive end, the next he's an OLB.

    Now all of this may seem like a bit much and I know this isn't something everyone will get into, but the potential addition of formation subs indicates there is thought in the design of this game toward players who immerse themselves in this type of strategy, so I'm just saying let's go all the way. Formation subs are great, but they are a half-measure. Custom packages truly offer more control.
    "A man can only be beaten in two ways: if he gives up, or if he dies."
  • Ueauvan
    MVP
    • Mar 2009
    • 1625

    #2
    Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

    there is a place for both, for example if i want to keep in 3-4, in a 3rd and 10 vs 3 wr 1 te because my nickel is injured and dime isnt good enough and my safeties are poo (or whatever) the sub package i want in is my best zcv or mcv lbers.

    doesnt help if you dont know fatigue levels

    i also want non starters on special teams, thats not a package

    can i have formation subs like madden 08 or hc06, and custom package overlay/ that way you can use one, both or none

    ps can i have a hands package

    Comment

    • Senator Palmer
      MVP
      • Jul 2008
      • 3314

      #3
      Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

      Originally posted by Ueauvan
      there is a place for both, for example if i want to keep in 3-4, in a 3rd and 10 vs 3 wr 1 te because my nickel is injured and dime isnt good enough and my safeties are poo (or whatever) the sub package i want in is my best zcv or mcv lbers.

      doesnt help if you dont know fatigue levels

      i also want non starters on special teams, thats not a package

      can i have formation subs like madden 08 or hc06, and custom package overlay/ that way you can use one, both or none

      ps can i have a hands package
      I don't disagree.

      May come off like I want one over the other. I don't. They both should be in the game, but I see a lot of posts asking for formation subs and rarely see packages mentioned at all. Just wanted to expound on the differences between the two and why I think custom packages are just as imperative.
      "A man can only be beaten in two ways: if he gives up, or if he dies."

      Comment

      • DeuceDouglas
        Madden Dev Team
        • Apr 2010
        • 4297

        #4
        Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

        Obviously both would be better but I would personally use Custom Packages more. Formation Subs would be great for kickoffs and special teams but I think anything I wanted to do offensively or defensively could be done with Custom Packages. I really, really hope these both got in. The only bummer is that the CPU doesn't use packages at all so that's one thing formation subs would do a lot better.

        Just thinking about possibilities of a 3rd RB or Short yardage back package, moving receivers around, drafting guys for potential roles would have me excited for this so I'm hoping they both got in but if I had to choose it'd for sure be custom packages.

        Comment

        • Ampking101
          Pro
          • Sep 2011
          • 724

          #5
          Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

          Honestly they just need to completely rehaul the depth chart set up. We already have a 3rd down back option. Why don't we have 3rd down or pass vs run options? If you add in the ability to choose to sub in one set of players or the other in each category I see no reason why that wouldn't be beneficial, I mean they should give us the ability to do all three but if they allowed us to build our depth chart as our base and then allowed us to package players in and out as a whole.

          For example, as the original post states, you wouldn't want Beasley in a strong formation because it is better for run stopping; say for instance though that all game you have used it as a formation to stop the run with your run stopping guys, you want to try to catch the offense slipping though so you call a strong formation again but this time you package in your pass rush guys and make it look like you are running a blitz, if you can catch him not paying attention to the players subbed, he might audible to a pass and bam you have an advantage now.

          This would be so much easier to do with the little amount of time you have to sub players in, let alone pick a play after the offense has chosen. We should also be able to choose who we want in specific formations beforehand but I believe a more in depth, depth chart would help flesh out defense completely. Imagine being able to set up a coverage strong safety and a run stop strong safety (or heck even being able to package a linebacker at strong safety while you move your coverage strong safety to nickle corner to stop the run) these options along with what others have suggested would be an awesome to be able to make defenses unique, give each team and each player a personality while also adding into the additions they are talking about with making defense matter again.

          Comment

          • Big FN Deal
            Banned
            • Aug 2011
            • 5993

            #6
            Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

            Granted it's been a long time since I was actually able to utilize the feature in any football game but if I recall correctly, "custom packages" could be achieved with "formation subs" once upon a time. I seem to remember when the formation sub ability, possibly even in Madden, allowed the User to go through every formation and variant, so the User could do exactly what the OP is describing as "custom packages". I think the only limitation was for individual plays but that might have been achievable then too in team management.

            I think the specific issue with "custom management" in Madden was with Users using that as a workaround to put any player, anywhere, which becomes an exploit due to the games programming. That said, I don't think it's a big deal to just limit "formation subs"/"custom packages" to the same restrictions as the general depth chart, ie only players from certain "positions" can be interchanged.

            Anyway, the general consensus with regard to this stuff is, add it back to team management/pregame, not just the gametime menu/sideline version.

            Comment

            • downundermike
              Rookie
              • Feb 2014
              • 60

              #7
              Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

              Originally posted by DeuceDouglas
              Obviously both would be better but I would personally use Custom Packages more. Formation Subs would be great for kickoffs and special teams but I think anything I wanted to do offensively or defensively could be done with Custom Packages. I really, really hope these both got in. The only bummer is that the CPU doesn't use packages at all so that's one thing formation subs would do a lot better.

              Just thinking about possibilities of a 3rd RB or Short yardage back package, moving receivers around, drafting guys for potential roles would have me excited for this so I'm hoping they both got in but if I had to choose it'd for sure be custom packages.
              I used to go crazy with custom packages. Moving my faster recievers to the inside on 4 wide sets, having specific pass rush packages for dime defense. Also just using them for mass substitution.

              Comment

              • RogueHominid
                Hall Of Fame
                • Aug 2006
                • 10903

                #8
                Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

                I think both could have a place. I don't see either actually making it into Madden, though.

                I think the packages idea is really compelling because that's how today's NFL strategy is organized.

                The problem I think Madden will have in implementing such a concept is coming up with a set of options for both sides of the ball that mimics what we see on Sunday. They haven't been able to do so for playbooks, game plans, or the current player and scheme type system, so I don't think there's reason to believe they could execute a robust package sub system.

                I think an additional problem would be that they would need to be more restrictive than we might like because of how such a system could be abused in online play.

                I suppose if I had to choose one, I'd choose formation subs because that's the option I think they could implement at least reasonably well, and that's the option that the sim community has been asking for year after year.

                Comment

                • Tatupu_64
                  Rookie
                  • Dec 2008
                  • 252

                  #9
                  Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

                  Not all nickel packages are the same. If I am doing a formation sub, I am doing if for Nickel Wide 9, not for all nickel packages. It is not going to automatically insert Beasley into nickel strong

                  Comment

                  • Senator Palmer
                    MVP
                    • Jul 2008
                    • 3314

                    #10
                    Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

                    Originally posted by Ampking101
                    Honestly they just need to completely rehaul the depth chart set up. We already have a 3rd down back option. Why don't we have 3rd down or pass vs run options? If you add in the ability to choose to sub in one set of players or the other in each category I see no reason why that wouldn't be beneficial, I mean they should give us the ability to do all three but if they allowed us to build our depth chart as our base and then allowed us to package players in and out as a whole.
                    I've been on this train for a long while, but the formation sub/custom packages seems a little more likely at this point, though.

                    But the depth charts are long outdated. We need to get the point where we can actually build schemes using the depth charts as templates. If I'm running a 4-3 Under, I don't need a Right Defensive End. I need a LEO and I need that LEO to automatically default to play on the weak side every down. I need a true SAM position on the depth chart, not an LOLB, so that he's always on the strong side, I need a slot for on the depth chart for a 3-technique, etc.


                    Originally posted by Big FN Deal
                    Granted it's been a long time since I was actually able to utilize the feature in any football game but if I recall correctly, "custom packages" could be achieved with "formation subs" once upon a time. I seem to remember when the formation sub ability, possibly even in Madden, allowed the User to go through every formation and variant, so the User could do exactly what the OP is describing as "custom packages". I think the only limitation was for individual plays but that might have been achievable then too in team management.

                    I think the specific issue with "custom management" in Madden was with Users using that as a workaround to put any player, anywhere, which becomes an exploit due to the games programming. That said, I don't think it's a big deal to just limit "formation subs"/"custom packages" to the same restrictions as the general depth chart, ie only players from certain "positions" can be interchanged.

                    Anyway, the general consensus with regard to this stuff is, add it back to team management/pregame, not just the gametime menu/sideline version.
                    How far back are you talking, Big? You could use formation subs in-game to try to get scheme-specific but in previous Maddens you ran into the same problem I referenced back to NCAA where the sub was just in there for every set in a specific formation. BUT they would actually stay the way you set them in game from week-to-week if you did them in franchise. Play Now, you were just out of luck.

                    In Madden 16, they actually have it so that you can sub inside of sets also, so it's more expansive, baut the subs will stay in that set even if you switch packages, and now... well as far as I know they don't stick week-to-week in CFM. At least I know they didn't in '15 (might have been '25) so I just didn't bother after that.

                    Originally posted by downundermike
                    I used to go crazy with custom packages. Moving my faster recievers to the inside on 4 wide sets, having specific pass rush packages for dime defense. Also just using them for mass substitution.
                    Man, listen... I don't remember exactly the year they got custom packages in, but the last Madden I had on PS2, I had all kinds of packages. Speed packages, heavy packages, I even put together one based on seniority. I went straight foolish with it.
                    "A man can only be beaten in two ways: if he gives up, or if he dies."

                    Comment

                    • Senator Palmer
                      MVP
                      • Jul 2008
                      • 3314

                      #11
                      Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

                      Originally posted by Tatupu_64
                      Not all nickel packages are the same. If I am doing a formation sub, I am doing if for Nickel Wide 9, not for all nickel packages. It is not going to automatically insert Beasley into nickel strong
                      I was referencing the way formation subs worked when they were finally implemented in NCAA. It was very limiting.

                      Even if you are able to sub different sets individually -- which I hope you would be -- it still isn't expansive enough because even if you change the packages on the right stick in-game, whatever sub you made won't move.

                      So if I see a better match-up for Beasley against a right tackle vs. left, if I have "formation subbed" him in that set then I'm stuck with him where he is. Even using the DE swap package won't move him.
                      "A man can only be beaten in two ways: if he gives up, or if he dies."

                      Comment

                      • Big FN Deal
                        Banned
                        • Aug 2011
                        • 5993

                        #12
                        Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

                        Lol, I'm actually not sure how far back I'm talking about, it's been so long now, older Maddens and other football game's features are all jumbled together in my memory. My point was, when I think of or refer to "formation subs", I envision the ability to go through all available formations in team management and custom select my personnel.

                        Here is a video of what I'm referring to in Madden 2008, lmk if I'm misunderstanding somehow though.

                        Comment

                        • Trick13
                          Pro
                          • Oct 2012
                          • 780

                          #13
                          Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

                          Madden 06 on PS2 had "custom packages"...

                          ... you created them yourself and there were 2 types...

                          Global - you could do something like sub HB3 for HB1, Sub WR2 for WR1, Sub WR3 for WR2, and WR1 for WR 3> thus creating a strong slot 3rd HB for all offensive formations. If you utilized it for a 2 WR set it would rest your number one WR. I used this extensively with a 3rd RB who was very fast but small, so I named it "Lightning SS", The SS meaning Strong Slot.

                          I had a bruiser as a primary backup and a global package called "Thunder" in which it sub HB2 for HB1, and another package called "Thunder Heavy" that substituted a back up OL player for TE1, and WR3 with the TE1 creating a singleback sub package and a Iform 3 wide global package.

                          You also had...

                          Formation specific
                          packages in which you could go into a specific formation - example singleback trio and create 1 or multiple packages specifically for that one formation. This created a ton of freedom that allowed you to use the same formation with different personnel.

                          I used this formation specific package creator more extensively on the defensive side of the ball where I would really rotate DL players and used a multiple front system in which I would employ 2 quality pass rushing DEs and 5 run stuffing DTs to create 3 DT fronts in the 3-4 and 2n2 fronts for
                          46, 43, nickel and dime packages. I also created what would later become known as the Nascar front used by the NY Giants, a few years ahead of them where for nickel and dime situations I created a package that put the 2 DEs at DT and 2 LBs at DE thus creating a speed front to contain mobile QBs.

                          The only down side to the PS2 system was it did not include SP Teams, however back then you still had formation sub functionality (any formation subs would completely override any packages) meaning for punt/kickoff teams you could "form sub" the players you wanted to be there. Hands team, onside return, punt block, and fg block were for some reason missing from formation subs back then.


                          There were a couple issues defensively if you attempted to create shadow assignments, like CB1 always play WR1, then sometimes you would get goofy stuff, but then again you had double team plays and safety shading so I just never used the defensive assignments.

                          I have been complaining in here ever since the 360 launched (several times as this user name and way back when M06 launched on a name I long ago forgot because Madden was flat out terrible until about M12) for this feature to return, and if done properly - meaning every formation including special teams is included then I would be ok with never seeing "formation subs" ever again.

                          OH, and I do remember WRs were not allowed in custom packages to sub for TEs, and no WRs for RBs - and no TEs in the backfield - for those you had to use base playbooks that had those packages and then add your custom packages onto your profile. Safeties and LBs could go back and forth, DL to LB, LB to DL and CB to safety and other way around, but you couldn't put a DB at DL, or a LB at CB

                          Comment

                          • Sgexpat
                            Rookie
                            • May 2016
                            • 292

                            #14
                            Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

                            these are really good points from the OP, but tbh I would be happy with simple formation subs. But the custom packages concept is closer to what I would want from a sim experience indeed.

                            Comment

                            • mlb61
                              Rookie
                              • Oct 2014
                              • 423

                              #15
                              Re: Formation Subs vs. Custom Packages

                              Originally posted by Big FN Deal
                              Granted it's been a long time since I was....
                              Bans aren't permanent after all?

                              Comment

                              Working...