Warrior General Games

Originally posted by morbo
Yes, the absence of points is the concern. I think it's ridiculous that defense can adjust to the offensive formation, when the offense can't even set that formation themselves. I want to be able to have my team line up in I-formation when I want to, just as the defense can line up just as they want to when I call it. Sometimes you want to line up with two TEs on 3rd and 1 and throw it. Perhaps occasionally run the ball from shotgun? I have no control at all right now, do you see why I think it's unfair?

I would like to be able to choose routes too, but that's not nearly as critical right now.

This. Exactly.

Originally posted by morbo

Yes, the absence of points is the concern. I think it's ridiculous that defense can adjust to the offensive formation, when the offense can't even set that formation themselves. I want to be able to have my team line up in I-formation when I want to, just as the defense can line up just as they want to when I call it. Sometimes you want to line up with two TEs on 3rd and 1 and throw it. Perhaps occasionally run the ball from shotgun? I have no control at all right now, do you see why I think it's unfair?

I would like to be able to choose routes too, but that's not nearly as critical right now.True dat. If the defense can adjust to a formation, the offense should be able to choose which one they use.

The Offensive side will catch up soon, it has to or the game will die a slow death.

The problem was that the Offensive AI will take longer to script and have a far bigger influence than the Defense as the defense is reactionary.

Imagine if the two we exchanged, and you could control every play on offense by personnel, formation, routes etc and the defense was just a general Shell and Blitz %.

The game would probably be a lot more fun, to tell the truth.

But it would be stupidly annoying and we would see a lot less people creating Defenders and a lot more offense.

The plus side is that the Defensive AI cant get much more complex, nothing so big anyway.

Bugs will be worked on, and Blitz and Pass Rush specifics are already being added. Bump and Run Coverage will be coming soon.
But then there really isnt much to add.

But Bort should have the next several Months to develop the Offensive side of the game.

Once you can dictate Plays from Formation type, offense is in control again, and add the personnel by formation and its nearly done.
Add Route calling, and then you have the final evolution, really.

I have an issue with the run game. My issue is that Preston Parker isnt rushing for 500 yards a game.

Originally posted by Mike Rogers
Bugs will be worked on, and Blitz and Pass Rush specifics are already being added. Bump and Run Coverage will be coming soon.
But then there really isnt much to add.IŽd also add formation specific depth charts, as well as personnel matchups. If theyŽre going to let the offense choose individual pass routes, then they need to let us choose which individual zone to cover, or which individual man to cover.

Just adding the last two would actually allow people to construct an actual defensive playbook.

Formation Specific Depth Charts are already being planned, have been for a few weeks.

Thought I read something about that...


IŽd really like the man/zone specific assignments to go along with player specific routes though (if thats ever implemented). It would make me feel like I had a lot more control if I could choose who is dropping back in the cover 3 (for example) or who is covering who man to man (i.e. LB watches the RB instead of the dime corner, who could be double teaming the wideout instead).

Originally posted by Hampe
Thought I read something about that...


IŽd really like the man/zone specific assignments to go along with player specific routes though (if thats ever implemented). It would make me feel like I had a lot more control if I could choose who is dropping back in the cover 3 (for example) or who is covering who man to man (i.e. LB watches the RB instead of the dime corner, who could be double teaming the wideout instead).

I would love to see that in freaking NCAA, not just this game. (Am i the only who gets pissed when a CB covers the RB while a LB takes the WR?).
But yah it would be nice to be able to say "WR A goes on the deep routes" "CB X covers receiver A" and so on

Edit: this would get exceedingly convoluted real quick when adding in fatigue and subs

I just want more in depth offense AI than Run inside, outside, and pass. FUCK THAT

Originally posted by Tiny Tom
Originally posted by Hampe

Thought I read something about that...


IŽd really like the man/zone specific assignments to go along with player specific routes though (if thats ever implemented). It would make me feel like I had a lot more control if I could choose who is dropping back in the cover 3 (for example) or who is covering who man to man (i.e. LB watches the RB instead of the dime corner, who could be double teaming the wideout instead).

I would love to see that in freaking NCAA, not just this game. (Am i the only who gets pissed when a CB covers the RB while a LB takes the WR?).
But yah it would be nice to be able to say "WR A goes on the deep routes" "CB X covers receiver A" and so on

Edit: this would get exceedingly convoluted real quick when adding in fatigue and subsI don't think it would be that hard to implement. For the outputs, you could choose zone or man for each postion (CB1 for example), and if you choose man, have a drop down menu where you could choose the offensive player (WR1 for example), or if you choose zone, have a drop down menu with different zones (deep, short, curl, etc.)