Madden NFL 17 Video - New England Patriots vs. Arizona Cardinals (cookieboy17)

[TombSong]

[quote=CM Hooe;2048335638]I certainly did just use math to make a point.

I'm not a racing fan, but I have indeed watched a drag race or two on ESPN2. Maybe you can tell me differently, but the few I have watched, the cars never turn.

Further, the gap between drag race cars is pronounced at small time differences because those cars are moving at hundreds of miles per hour. Football players don't move nearly that fast. A defensive lineman running north at an average velocity of 16.4 mph for two seconds covers 16.04 yards due north, and a receiver running north at 18.6 mph for two seconds covers 18.18 yards due north. However, the receiver isn't running true north; he's running at 18.6 mph at a 30 degrees east from north for two seconds (so an actual north-bound speed of 16.1 mph, via Pythagorean theorem). In two seconds at 16.1 mph he covers 15.74 yards due north. He also covers 9.3 yards due east, because he's still actually moving 18.6 mph, but at an angle. Since Fitzgerald runs towards Branch and never crosses his face or behind him, the east distance component doesn't matter. We can easily see, then, that Branch at his maximum speed moving directly north is moving north faster than Fitzgerald is while Fitz runs his route which is angled away from true north. Branch beats Fitzgerald to the spot by nine inches.

Math.

---

You are speaking as though Madden is tightly coupled with the "math" you are applying to it. I see CBs with 87 speed "pressed" up on WR's with 95 speed, and the WR cant run past the CB simply because the CB is playing a cover 3 deep zone(because in Madden world because you are in a blue Deep zone that negates the fact you are slower, so we will allow you to back peddle just as fast as the WR is sprinting) Where is your math then ?

Math is thrown out the window in this game and is replaced with warping, sliding, and whatever else they must do to speed / slow the game down to make whatever feature they are trying to implement work.

Lets not talk about it like yall like to do every year pre-launch. Yall are the "game changers" Show us these vids of your math in action. Show me the vids of this new "gap assignments" working. Show some vids of these new match up zones working as advertised.

Every year yall post all this stuff about how great the game is gonna be then we all find out later that it ain't quite what yall hyped it up to be and the devs end up having to reintroduce the stuff next year as blah blah 2.0, updated and improved, or slap a new name on a 3 year old feature

[SolidSquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

I certainly did just use math to make a point. Feel free to present a counter-point backed up with your own math, rather than just saying "you're wrong because I say you are". The latter isn't reasonable or productive discourse. The only two pieces of information that matter as far as the video game is concerned are his SPD and ACC. A 400-lb player with SPD 99 ACC 99 in Madden has the same top speed and ability to reach top speed as a 150-lb SPD 99 ACC 99 player, as should be the case; hypothetically speaking, if I can run a 4.24 40 at 400 lbs in real life, I can run just as fast as the 150-lb guy who also runs a 4.24 40, and my weight doesn't matter. No. When you take control of a player in Madden, you override his mental ratings; your controls are his mental ratings, and your controls are that player's AWR rating. You're still limited by that player's SPD / AGI / ACC / JMP / STA ratings. That's absolutely not getting boosted, and it makes no sense to boost them. As someone who tested player running speeds extensively to help calibrate data conversions to SPD and ACC for FBGratings, I'm confident in offering this opinion decisively. Madden players don't require a sprinter's stance to maximize their acceleration to their top speed, and the receivers aren't starting from a sprinter's stance either so it's a wash. Heck, Fitzgerald gets bumped coming out of his stance by the WILL backer Jones, increasing the amount of time it takes for him to get to top speed as well. Moreover, I'm using average velocity in my math and not momentary velocity, which really doesn't really matter in this case because it doesn't affect the total time it takes either player to achieve the required distance. Yes. Of course I watched the play in the video before I posted. Multiple times. While I was posting. Otherwise I would have no base of knowledge from which to offer my opinion. I watched it a few more times before writing this long post. Here's what I see happening: The ball is snapped. Branch engages the guard, disengages immediately, then starts sprinting backwards. He's not "dropping into coverage" with a DB backpedal and hip swivel, he literally plants his foot and sprints towards the opposite end zone as fast as he can. As mentioned above, the relevant receiver, Fitzgerald, gets bumped coming out of his stance off the line, slowing him down momentarily, before he immediately turns his route towards the field side of the play. How much he turns is hard to tell given the perspective of the camera, so I've estimated he turns 30 degrees east away from perpendicular to the goal line. The quarterback then holds the ball for another two full seconds before throwing the ball, which is enough time for Branch to run 20 yards from the line of scrimmage to the destination of the throw as demonstrated by the math I provided. As it stands, Fitzgerald still got further down the field than Branch did (so my angle estimate is probably wrong), but the throw is so low that Branch really doesn't have to do anything but get in the way to defend the pass. Please tell me what is wrong with my description. I'm not a racing fan, but I have indeed watched a drag race or two on ESPN2. Maybe you can tell me differently, but the few I have watched, the cars never turn. Further, the gap between drag race cars is pronounced at small time differences because those cars are moving at hundreds of miles per hour. Football players don't move nearly that fast. A defensive lineman running north at an average velocity of 16.4 mph for two seconds covers 16.04 yards due north, and a receiver running north at 18.6 mph for two seconds covers 18.18 yards due north. However, the receiver isn't running true north; he's running at 18.6 mph at a 30 degrees east from north for two seconds (so an actual north-bound speed of 16.1 mph, via Pythagorean theorem). In two seconds at 16.1 mph he covers 15.74 yards due north. He also covers 9.3 yards due east, because he's still actually moving 18.6 mph, but at an angle. Since Fitzgerald runs towards Branch and never crosses his face or behind him, the east distance component doesn't matter. We can easily see, then, that Branch at his maximum speed moving directly north is moving north faster than Fitzgerald is while Fitz runs his route which is angled away from true north. Branch beats Fitzgerald to the spot by nine inches. Math. --- Seriously y'all, the intent of my post was to correctly identify where Madden could stand to improve something, that being their simplified model of player acceleration, top speed, and fatigue. At the same time, however, my point is also that what's happening in this play isn't outright ridiculous, other than the user's decision to drop Branch into deep coverage and his opponent's response to throw a pass directly at him and into triple coverage.

Like I said you can't give me a real world example of a defensive tackle who can engage a center then sprint back and cover a wr like Alan Branch did it that video. I'm not saying youre wrong bc I said so I'm saying you're wrong bc you are. This thing just doesn't happen in the NFL no matter how much "math" you want to try to use to prove your point.

[DickDalewood]

Had to mute this immediately. Between his cheesey play and obnoxious commentary, I have to wonder what the decision making process is at EA on choosing whom to have showcase their game.

I'm excited for this to drop (really enjoyed 16) but if I never hear that kid talk again it will be too soon.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by DickDalewood

Had to mute this immediately. Between his cheesey play and obnoxious commentary, I have to wonder what the decision making process is at EA on choosing whom to have showcase their game. I'm excited for this to drop (really enjoyed 16) but if I never hear that kid talk again it will be too soon.

Those Youtube guys arent for you (or me). They are for casual fans who like that kind of Youtube commentary and videos. I'm not going to watch many of the videos but I prefer a guy like SimFballCritic. His videos have a more professional touch.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

The only two pieces of information that matter as far as the video game is concerned are his SPD and ACC.

You need more than two pieces of info. You are missing the time it takes a DT to engage an offensive lineman, turn 180 degrees and then accelerate vs the time it takes an experienced receiver to get off of bump coverage at the LOS. I'm not talking MADDEN TIME, I'm talking real NFL time.

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

No. When you take control of a player in Madden, you override his mental ratings; your controls are his mental ratings, and your controls are that player's AWR rating. You're still limited by that player's SPD / AGI / ACC / JMP / STA ratings. That's absolutely not getting boosted, and it makes no sense to boost them.

According to a Madden Dev, the user controlled player does get boosts. So I'm not sure how you say his ratings "absolutely not getting boosted". We would have to find out from that dev if ratings get boosted in this scenario for whatever level they are playing at and what ratings to see if ratings boost effected the drop back.

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Please tell me what is wrong with my description.

You're wrong in that you didn't account for the real life time it takes a DT to engage the Offensive lineman, read pass and make a 180 deg turn and accelerate vs the time it takes an experienced receiver to defeat bump coverage getting off the LOS. Again, I don't see that in your math example. There are more variables in this than you accounted for.

I would call what you did, lazy analysis or incomplete analysis.