Originally posted by Dr. Showtime
how hard is it to change the wording so that strong/weak becomes right/left?
Pretty much this.
how hard is it to change the wording so that strong/weak becomes right/left?
Pretty much this.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Will there ever be a Trips Right? Play action/motion? Custom Movement for D-line? etc.
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by Dr. Showtime
how hard is it to change the wording so that strong/weak becomes right/left?
The defense's right/left, or the offense's right/left?
Right.
No, left.
Right.
how hard is it to change the wording so that strong/weak becomes right/left?
The defense's right/left, or the offense's right/left?
Right.
No, left.
Right.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Trips Right would mess up Strong/Weak logic. In every other formation, strong refers to right. Swapping it to left would possibly mess up coding and would lead to potential for confusion.
what do you mean? why would having 3 WRs on the right make it Weak? might be a dumb question to some of you but ive played defense for 10 seasons and ive always been taught different things. for certain teams we did: open side of the field was strong or TE side is strong or most receivers(including TEs) was strong.
Trips Right would mess up Strong/Weak logic. In every other formation, strong refers to right. Swapping it to left would possibly mess up coding and would lead to potential for confusion.
what do you mean? why would having 3 WRs on the right make it Weak? might be a dumb question to some of you but ive played defense for 10 seasons and ive always been taught different things. for certain teams we did: open side of the field was strong or TE side is strong or most receivers(including TEs) was strong.
Edited by ProfessionalKop on May 13, 2013 14:00:30
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
what do you mean? why would having 3 WRs on the right make it Weak? might be a dumb question to some of you but ive played defense for 10 seasons and ive always been taught different things. for certain teams we did: open side of the field was strong or TE side is strong or most receivers(including TEs) was strong.
Because the only way to keep the TE and all 3 WRs as eligible receivers would be to move the TE to the left side of the line. And in GLB-land, the "strong" side is "whatever side the TE is lined up on."
If you keep the TE on the right side and move the 3 WRs to the right side, the LOT would be an eligible receiver, and the TE would be "covered" and would be ineligible. (Or you could drop the TE a step behind the line and move one of the WRs up on the line instead, but then one of the WRs would be "covered" and ineligible instead, so same problem.) Technically still a legal formation, but it would cause some serious problems within the sim.
On the plus side, it would finally give me a chance to try out that receiving-OT build I've always wanted to try...
what do you mean? why would having 3 WRs on the right make it Weak? might be a dumb question to some of you but ive played defense for 10 seasons and ive always been taught different things. for certain teams we did: open side of the field was strong or TE side is strong or most receivers(including TEs) was strong.
Because the only way to keep the TE and all 3 WRs as eligible receivers would be to move the TE to the left side of the line. And in GLB-land, the "strong" side is "whatever side the TE is lined up on."
If you keep the TE on the right side and move the 3 WRs to the right side, the LOT would be an eligible receiver, and the TE would be "covered" and would be ineligible. (Or you could drop the TE a step behind the line and move one of the WRs up on the line instead, but then one of the WRs would be "covered" and ineligible instead, so same problem.) Technically still a legal formation, but it would cause some serious problems within the sim.
On the plus side, it would finally give me a chance to try out that receiving-OT build I've always wanted to try...
Dr. E
offline
offline
Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
what do you mean? why would having 3 WRs on the right make it Weak? might be a dumb question to some of you but ive played defense for 10 seasons and ive always been taught different things. for certain teams we did: open side of the field was strong or TE side is strong or most receivers(including TEs) was strong.
Because the TE is now on the opposite side of the field and positioning the LB to cover would become an issue since coverman doesn't work in the box, otherwise, cover TE left or cover TE right would have to be introduced.
what do you mean? why would having 3 WRs on the right make it Weak? might be a dumb question to some of you but ive played defense for 10 seasons and ive always been taught different things. for certain teams we did: open side of the field was strong or TE side is strong or most receivers(including TEs) was strong.
Because the TE is now on the opposite side of the field and positioning the LB to cover would become an issue since coverman doesn't work in the box, otherwise, cover TE left or cover TE right would have to be introduced.
Originally posted by bhall43
Nothing is set in stone. But there are a number of formations in the works. But right now the focus is defensively.
meaning what, more formations for D? or fixing pursuit? both??
Nothing is set in stone. But there are a number of formations in the works. But right now the focus is defensively.
meaning what, more formations for D? or fixing pursuit? both??
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by lardaddy
meaning what, more formations for D? or fixing pursuit? both??
More formations for defense. Better defensive preset AI's and plays.
meaning what, more formations for D? or fixing pursuit? both??
More formations for defense. Better defensive preset AI's and plays.
bhall43
offline
offline
Just in the planning stage as far as I know right now. No idea if they plan on running the new d formations for s35 or waiting another season for them.
Originally posted by Dr. Showtime
how hard is it to change the wording so that strong/weak becomes right/left?
That's the million dollar question. It really depends on how things are coded. That's why I said "possibly". I've not seen the code and likely never will.
how hard is it to change the wording so that strong/weak becomes right/left?
That's the million dollar question. It really depends on how things are coded. That's why I said "possibly". I've not seen the code and likely never will.
Originally posted by Novus
Because the only way to keep the TE and all 3 WRs as eligible receivers would be to move the TE to the left side of the line. And in GLB-land, the "strong" side is "whatever side the TE is lined up on."
If you keep the TE on the right side and move the 3 WRs to the right side, the LOT would be an eligible receiver, and the TE would be "covered" and would be ineligible. (Or you could drop the TE a step behind the line and move one of the WRs up on the line instead, but then one of the WRs would be "covered" and ineligible instead, so same problem.) Technically still a legal formation, but it would cause some serious problems within the sim.
On the plus side, it would finally give me a chance to try out that receiving-OT build I've always wanted to try...
Originally posted by Dr. E
Because the TE is now on the opposite side of the field and positioning the LB to cover would become an issue since coverman doesn't work in the box, otherwise, cover TE left or cover TE right would have to be introduced.
i dont see the issue. we can cover BTEs fine, why cant they just shimmy him on over? i can see who my LBs are covering from the blue lines... i just see it as like Weak I and Strong I, just a slight variation in a formation. then again im not a coder but if we can have TEs on both sides of the line, or no TEs at all, i dont see why the TE cant just be tossed to the left and maybe it be considered the BTE slot in the AI?
Because the only way to keep the TE and all 3 WRs as eligible receivers would be to move the TE to the left side of the line. And in GLB-land, the "strong" side is "whatever side the TE is lined up on."
If you keep the TE on the right side and move the 3 WRs to the right side, the LOT would be an eligible receiver, and the TE would be "covered" and would be ineligible. (Or you could drop the TE a step behind the line and move one of the WRs up on the line instead, but then one of the WRs would be "covered" and ineligible instead, so same problem.) Technically still a legal formation, but it would cause some serious problems within the sim.
On the plus side, it would finally give me a chance to try out that receiving-OT build I've always wanted to try...
Originally posted by Dr. E
Because the TE is now on the opposite side of the field and positioning the LB to cover would become an issue since coverman doesn't work in the box, otherwise, cover TE left or cover TE right would have to be introduced.
i dont see the issue. we can cover BTEs fine, why cant they just shimmy him on over? i can see who my LBs are covering from the blue lines... i just see it as like Weak I and Strong I, just a slight variation in a formation. then again im not a coder but if we can have TEs on both sides of the line, or no TEs at all, i dont see why the TE cant just be tossed to the left and maybe it be considered the BTE slot in the AI?
Edited by ProfessionalKop on May 13, 2013 22:20:36
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Nothing is set in stone. But there are a number of formations in the works. But right now the focus is defensively.
More formations just creates bigger headaches for DCs for a half season to two seasons (depending on the DC) and then the new formations become as useless as the old ones. What you need is for QBs to throw to spots better in order to avoid the coverage and not have the coverage dots able to make deflections as easily when the receiver is between them and the ball.
Nothing is set in stone. But there are a number of formations in the works. But right now the focus is defensively.
More formations just creates bigger headaches for DCs for a half season to two seasons (depending on the DC) and then the new formations become as useless as the old ones. What you need is for QBs to throw to spots better in order to avoid the coverage and not have the coverage dots able to make deflections as easily when the receiver is between them and the ball.
Originally posted by Time Trial
More formations just creates bigger headaches for DCs for a half season to two seasons (depending on the DC) and then the new formations become as useless as the old ones. What you need is for QBs to throw to spots better in order to avoid the coverage and not have the coverage dots able to make deflections as easily when the receiver is between them and the ball.
I always thought Bort needed to have QBs throw to anticipated space more and let the WRs essentially make up reasonable amount of ground w/ a ballhawk VA-esque effect. There are too many very specific calculations going on with finding the exact point at which the ball trajectory and WR's path meets. If Bort could make those calculations much more fuzzy with emphasis on the velocity of the receiver, I think it could work.
Ideally, we'd be able to have more long balls where a super fast WR went and ran the ball down or crossing routes where the QB anticipated space. It'd likewise potentially make the WR possession tree more valuable (diving catches, one handed catch, etc.).
More formations just creates bigger headaches for DCs for a half season to two seasons (depending on the DC) and then the new formations become as useless as the old ones. What you need is for QBs to throw to spots better in order to avoid the coverage and not have the coverage dots able to make deflections as easily when the receiver is between them and the ball.
I always thought Bort needed to have QBs throw to anticipated space more and let the WRs essentially make up reasonable amount of ground w/ a ballhawk VA-esque effect. There are too many very specific calculations going on with finding the exact point at which the ball trajectory and WR's path meets. If Bort could make those calculations much more fuzzy with emphasis on the velocity of the receiver, I think it could work.
Ideally, we'd be able to have more long balls where a super fast WR went and ran the ball down or crossing routes where the QB anticipated space. It'd likewise potentially make the WR possession tree more valuable (diving catches, one handed catch, etc.).
Edited by InRomoWeTrust on May 13, 2013 22:32:58
Edited by InRomoWeTrust on May 13, 2013 22:32:33
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
i dont see the issue. we can cover BTEs fine, why cant they just shimmy him on over? i can see who my LBs are covering from the blue lines... i just see it as like Weak I and Strong I, just a slight variation in a formation. then again im not a coder but if we can have TEs on both sides of the line, or no TEs at all, i dont see why the TE cant just be tossed to the left and maybe it be considered the BTE slot in the AI?
But then which side is considered to be the "strong" side? Is it the side the TE is on, or the side the 3 WRs are on?
Remember, all the other formations that exist in GLB right now are based on the TE being on the right side, and thus the right side is the strong side. That affects all sorts of stuff on the defense: HB coverage options include "strong" and "weak," and all the zones are defined as "strong" and "weak" as well. Plus the Strong Safety defaults to the strong side of the field and the Free Safety defaults to the weak side of the field.
So for the Trips Right formation, if you consider the left side of the formation to be the strong side just because the TE is there, suddenly everything on the defensive side of the ball has to get reversed -- EVERYTHING -- just for all the plays in that one formation, since it would be the only formation where the strong side is on the left.
If instead you consider the right side of the formation to be the strong side for consistency's sake, you'll confuse the fuck out of a lot players because they'll think, "Wait a sec, isn't the strong side supposed to be the side the TE is on?" And then for the rest of this game's existence, we'll have people posting whine threads about how stupid that is in GLB Main. (Think the confusion would settle down after a while? Think again. People still don't get how MVP Eq gets handed out.)
And in the end, what would be the point of having Trips Right anyway? The formation would simply be the mirror-image of the current Trips formation, so you could probably just mirror image all of the current Trips plays for Trips Right, which renders the whole exercise pointless anyway.
I would be flat-out amazed if Trips Right ever becomes part of the game. It really wouldn't add anything except inconsistency and confusion.
i dont see the issue. we can cover BTEs fine, why cant they just shimmy him on over? i can see who my LBs are covering from the blue lines... i just see it as like Weak I and Strong I, just a slight variation in a formation. then again im not a coder but if we can have TEs on both sides of the line, or no TEs at all, i dont see why the TE cant just be tossed to the left and maybe it be considered the BTE slot in the AI?
But then which side is considered to be the "strong" side? Is it the side the TE is on, or the side the 3 WRs are on?
Remember, all the other formations that exist in GLB right now are based on the TE being on the right side, and thus the right side is the strong side. That affects all sorts of stuff on the defense: HB coverage options include "strong" and "weak," and all the zones are defined as "strong" and "weak" as well. Plus the Strong Safety defaults to the strong side of the field and the Free Safety defaults to the weak side of the field.
So for the Trips Right formation, if you consider the left side of the formation to be the strong side just because the TE is there, suddenly everything on the defensive side of the ball has to get reversed -- EVERYTHING -- just for all the plays in that one formation, since it would be the only formation where the strong side is on the left.
If instead you consider the right side of the formation to be the strong side for consistency's sake, you'll confuse the fuck out of a lot players because they'll think, "Wait a sec, isn't the strong side supposed to be the side the TE is on?" And then for the rest of this game's existence, we'll have people posting whine threads about how stupid that is in GLB Main. (Think the confusion would settle down after a while? Think again. People still don't get how MVP Eq gets handed out.)
And in the end, what would be the point of having Trips Right anyway? The formation would simply be the mirror-image of the current Trips formation, so you could probably just mirror image all of the current Trips plays for Trips Right, which renders the whole exercise pointless anyway.
I would be flat-out amazed if Trips Right ever becomes part of the game. It really wouldn't add anything except inconsistency and confusion.
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
I always thought Bort needed to have QBs throw to anticipated space more and let the WRs essentially make up reasonable amount of ground w/ a ballhawk VA-esque effect. There are too many very specific calculations going on with finding the exact point at which the ball trajectory and WR's path meets. If Bort could make those calculations much more fuzzy with emphasis on the velocity of the receiver, I think it could work.
Ideally, we'd be able to have more long balls where a super fast WR went and ran the ball down or crossing routes where the QB anticipated space. It'd likewise potentially make the WR possession tree more valuable (diving catches, one handed catch, etc.).
I agree. Some of those, throw the ball up there throws need to have a lot more "loft" on them to give the WR a chance to adjust to the ball in the air a bit. When a QB just bombs it out there and lets a speedy player try and get under it, he does it when the defender has been beat or when he wants to give his guy a chance for it in single coverage and to box the other guy out on a route.
In this game, a lot of the essential dynamics between the receiver and the defender just aren't programmed.
A 6'8" Possession TE who is being covered by a 5'8" CB or LB really should have no trouble keeping the ball away from the defender with a little targeted passing by the QB. The QB shouldn't be hitting that guy on the numbers, he should be putting the ball at a height and in a spot the defender has no chance at it.
But in GLB the defender still has a chance at the ball even with that height mismatch and even if the TE is between the D and the direction of the catch.
I always thought Bort needed to have QBs throw to anticipated space more and let the WRs essentially make up reasonable amount of ground w/ a ballhawk VA-esque effect. There are too many very specific calculations going on with finding the exact point at which the ball trajectory and WR's path meets. If Bort could make those calculations much more fuzzy with emphasis on the velocity of the receiver, I think it could work.
Ideally, we'd be able to have more long balls where a super fast WR went and ran the ball down or crossing routes where the QB anticipated space. It'd likewise potentially make the WR possession tree more valuable (diving catches, one handed catch, etc.).
I agree. Some of those, throw the ball up there throws need to have a lot more "loft" on them to give the WR a chance to adjust to the ball in the air a bit. When a QB just bombs it out there and lets a speedy player try and get under it, he does it when the defender has been beat or when he wants to give his guy a chance for it in single coverage and to box the other guy out on a route.
In this game, a lot of the essential dynamics between the receiver and the defender just aren't programmed.
A 6'8" Possession TE who is being covered by a 5'8" CB or LB really should have no trouble keeping the ball away from the defender with a little targeted passing by the QB. The QB shouldn't be hitting that guy on the numbers, he should be putting the ball at a height and in a spot the defender has no chance at it.
But in GLB the defender still has a chance at the ball even with that height mismatch and even if the TE is between the D and the direction of the catch.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
