I've been trying both, and I had a lot more of success as DC when gameplanning(or setting up my Defense AI) against formations than against certain situations. I think it makes everything more simple and effective. Thoughts?
Seano
offline
offline
I gameplan for both. Have a basic setting for formation, then specific outputs for certain situations, eg 3rd/4th and long, 3rd/4th and short, etc.
Deathblade
offline
offline
Have your base gameplan based on formation.
Have situational inputs also based on formations.
Have situational inputs also based on formations.
Seano
offline
offline
Originally posted by Deathblade
Have your base gameplan based on formation.
Have situational inputs also based on formations.
This is what I tried to say. Didn't quite get there. ;-)
Have your base gameplan based on formation.
Have situational inputs also based on formations.
This is what I tried to say. Didn't quite get there. ;-)
Painmaker
offline
offline
Doesn't matter which you use as your primary structure, so long as you use everything and every input is in logical order. Each input should specify formation, down-and-distance, score, and time remaining (could go further with timeouts remaining but it offers relatively little gain for the additional work). That's a lot of inputs to manage though. 
Thread hijack: A little while ago I made an Epic Suggestion to simplify the AI interface so you could apply principles for each situation in isolation, rather than needing a separate input for each specific combination of circumstances. This could be a big factor in GM burnout, and result in more teams using effective AI to keep games competitive between a larger number of teams than it is currently. Would love to see something easier to manage coming down the pipe, even if it takes a coupla seasons. Right now it's just too cumbersome to adjust a robust AI, let alone create one.
Back on topic: if you must pick only one, I'd pick formation-based AI because it's probably more effective than situation-based alone. But you're giving up a lot of capability to run such a reduced set of inputs. Including both formation and down-and-distance (i.e., each formation for a given down-and-distance range, or each down-and-distance range for a given formation) probably gets you 75% of the effectiveness of the full AI I described earlier without multiplying your number of inputs by the number of score situations you want to consider, plus copying and modifying it for each quarter.
Thread hijack: A little while ago I made an Epic Suggestion to simplify the AI interface so you could apply principles for each situation in isolation, rather than needing a separate input for each specific combination of circumstances. This could be a big factor in GM burnout, and result in more teams using effective AI to keep games competitive between a larger number of teams than it is currently. Would love to see something easier to manage coming down the pipe, even if it takes a coupla seasons. Right now it's just too cumbersome to adjust a robust AI, let alone create one.
Back on topic: if you must pick only one, I'd pick formation-based AI because it's probably more effective than situation-based alone. But you're giving up a lot of capability to run such a reduced set of inputs. Including both formation and down-and-distance (i.e., each formation for a given down-and-distance range, or each down-and-distance range for a given formation) probably gets you 75% of the effectiveness of the full AI I described earlier without multiplying your number of inputs by the number of score situations you want to consider, plus copying and modifying it for each quarter.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
