Madden NFL 10 Blog - Improvements to QB Position

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

As a quarterback the best way is the vision cone. It can also used for going in to evasive type moves. Also since there aren't any composure/leadership type ratings it could work for them too.

You make a lot of interesting points in your post but I hate the vision cone with regards to the QB position. The best idea I can come up with is to boost and weaken opposing DBs pass defense awareness based on the user QB awareness. This wouldn't change the way you play the game but would also make passing more difficult with a crappy QB and easier with a better QB.

Some might find that a cheap way to do it but I disagree. How many times have you watched a bad QB play and it seems as though nobody is open? DBs read their eyes and/or the bad QB is too slow on his reads making DBs anticipation seem better. This would mimic that. Conversely, Peyton Manning makes DBs look bad and slow to react while passing (ie. downgrade their awareness attributes). I'm not going to say it's a perfect sim but neither is a vision cone and my solution doesn't involve a goofy looking flashlight on the field.

Final point: the one thing EA could do to make this even better is to add a rating for quickness of release. That would separate the quick gunning qbs from the slow windup ones like Kerry Collins.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

There was nothing sim about the cone. All you had to do was hold the trigger and double-tap which ever pass button. At best it cost you an extra .3 seconds. I never felt it emulated a QB locating his receiver. And it was ugly.

The sim factor came in that you could read the QB's eyes and the QB could "look off" defenders. The QB also had to "look" at his receivers before he threw the ball instead of just chucking the ball up. I understand that some may say it's a gimmick and that's fine. That's your opinion. In my eyes though, there is no other way to accurately reproduce watching the QB's eyes than some kind of cone. Maybe it could be refined, well I know it could be refined to be less intrusive but ultimately there would have to be some kind of cone there. This is always the ultimate debate among Madden gamers. Some say it's a gimmick and some say it's sim. I can understand why some may not like it because of the way it was implemented before, but I don't understand why some would call it a gimmick. According to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimmick

"In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature. "

How can you say the cone is of no use or relevance? You all may not like it, but it is far from a gimmick. I would be interested in seeing a poll asking who's for/against the vision cone. Either way, I know the results would be closer than the poll asking about keeping/removing lead blocker control. lol

[g2thecore]

I for one HATED the very existence of the vision cone. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a "gimmick" per se, but I personally didn't find it very intuitive at all. If anything, it was more of a headache attempting to use it.

Though I understand the reason the feature was implemented, I think it could have been less intrusive.

[GoToledo]

This about sums it up. Fantastic job Ian, Phil, and co. IMO, this is the best "feature" Madden has seen since last-gen.

[RGiles36]

Quote: Originally Posted by splff3000

The sim factor came in that you could read the QB's eyes and the QB could "look off" defenders. The QB also had to "look" at his receivers before he threw the ball instead of just chucking the ball up. I understand that some may say it's a gimmick and that's fine. That's your opinion. In my eyes though, there is no other way to accurately reproduce watching the QB's eyes than some kind of cone. Maybe it could be refined, well I know it could be refined to be less intrusive but ultimately there would have to be some kind of cone there. This is always the ultimate debate among Madden gamers. Some say it's a gimmick and some say it's sim. I can understand why some may not like it because of the way it was implemented before, but I don't understand why some would call it a gimmick.

Over the years, I've kind of sat on the fence about QB Vision. But more recently, I don't want to be bothered with it.

If having a distracting vision cone is only there to produce the effect of the QB looking off defenders and having to look at their receivers, then it's not worth it to me.

I think Vision Cone has a fanbase b/c of flaws in Madden's gameplay over the years. The vision cone helped to eliminate some of the cheese, so to speak. That's why it's widely regarded as sim by some of its fans.

For comparison's sake, when I play 2K's football games, I still feel the sim experience without the use of a vision cone. Just having the QBs turn towards the receiver before passing the ball is satisfying for me (which happens most of the time).

[Nza]

I think just having to switch to a target before throwing would be enough. You don't need the visible cone, maybe just the button over the target's head changes or something to tell you who you're looking at. In any case, I don't think only being able to throw to who you're looking at is a bad thing.

The size of the cone was mostly redundant because unless the cone was so big every WR was in your range, I always found it far easier to switch to my desired target before throwing anyway, even if he already was in my vision. It was quicker to do that than determine if a player was in my vision cone before throwing - it became automatic to manually switch after a while. So the visible cone isn't really necessary at all.

BTW, back on topic to the new QB ratings. I can understand a new play action rating, but is it really that big a variable in real life? To me, whether a play action works depends far more on the offense as a whole than the QB. Any NFL QB should be able to sell a fake. What should matter is if the offense has a dangerous enough RB to punish D's who don't anticipate the run, and whether or not the offense currently has a good run game going. On the other hand, D's should be less reactive to runs based on whether the offense has a deep threat dangerous enough to punish D's who do anticipate the run, and whether or not the offense currently has a good pass game going. The run should open up the pass by D's biting play action, and the pass should open up the run by D's not stacking the box and reacting to runs so quickly. Not sure how a QB play action rating fits in honestly.

IMO the game needs a (perhaps hidden) overall defensive rating/slider that dictates their Pass/Run in real time, adjusting as the game goes on. 0 means they are going all out for the run, 50 is half/half, and 99 is all out to stop the pass. And it shouldn't always start at 50/50 either to begin a game - it should start based on the team matchup.

[TheTodd84]

Good Job EA and Ian and I LOVE your commitment to simulation football, this is such a refreshing change, it cannot be put into words.

However, I have one question that may be a dealbreaker for some of us as to whether or not we are spending $60 to buy this game. Here it is:

How will this layered blending be applied to offensive linemen, running backs, as well as defensive players to make the game more realistic?

This has been asked before, but I am just wondering. If this layered blending is applied to all of those positions to eliminate suction animations, I will be the first person after that blog comes out to pre-order both games.

Just one disclaimer, and you can call me a cynic. I just hope that these features are tested properly because as someone mentioned before, if the deep pass accuracy and strength ratings are too high, people can just cheese and throw deep posts ad nauseum, effectively ruining an otherwise good game.

But, great job guys!

[TheTodd84]

please excuse me for my last post, that question has been asked non-stop and i hadn't read the comments enough yet, haha. My bad. I am always a day late and a dollar short with these things because I can only come on here once a day. Dammit, lol.

Either way, can't wait to hear more info.