NCAA Football 10 Video: Army vs. Navy

[nstod]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

Good point about the over agressive CBs. Hadn't thought of that.

It's also possible that the CPU "sold out" on the run, and that was why the CB went aggressively for the run. If that is the case, I am GLAD to see the CB act this way, as if you guess run, and they go to an option pass, you should expect to get burnt badly.

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by stylee

Now, the QB in this vid pitches off the backside OLB as the Tight End base blocks who is basically head up on him, and two of the backs load the S and the MLB. For some reason the CB slides inside and takes himself out of the play. One could certainly say "load the playside and QB just pitch off of whoever flashes free"...and maybe that's the desired scheme here. I'm probably just reading too deeply into this but it would be nice to see the regular ISV/Triple Option out of this, as it is the base of this entire playbook.

Yea, it is an odd scheme...because you never know what the SLB is going to do.

The DE should be blocked either way, but I would guess that the SLB would be the pitch key. The TE would block the MLB for the QB and the FB would block him for the pitch. The slot goes up and blocks the SS.

My best guess is that there are really no reads in the TO or schemes whatsoever again.

[stylee]

Sounds about right to me.

I was told by a mod at NCAAstrategies who personally asked the Devs about unblocked defenders on the option.
They told him it wasn't feasible because unblocked defenders "caused AI problems"

but it looks like this tackle is at least programmed to step inside first, instead of step straight upfield. So that's a step, I guess.

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by stylee

Sounds about right to me. I was told by a mod at NCAAstrategies who personally asked the Devs about unblocked defenders on the option. They told him it wasn't feasible because unblocked defenders "caused AI problems" but it looks like this tackle is at least programmed to step inside first, instead of step straight upfield. So that's a step, I guess.

Unbelievable.

But then they spend all their time and effort on something like Season Showdown. I'm not even going to pretend like I know how to program, but this is about priorities IMO.

I think it should be a priority to get offensive schemes right. I think it should be a priority to get realistic physics and momentum in the game. It should be a priority to get fundamental defensive principles in the game.

[stylee]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rocky

Unbelievable. But then they spend all their time and effort on something like Season Showdown. I'm not even going to pretend like I know how to program, but this is about priorities IMO. I think it should be a priority to get offensive schemes right. I think it should be a priority to get realistic physics and momentum in the game. It should be a priority to get fundamental defensive principles in the game.

I don't know...

if the hypothetical imperative is to build a true or at least approximate simulation of college football action, then I agree, these sorts of things should be #1 Priority.

But that's not NCAA '10s only goal. They also want to appeal to the widest possible fanbase so that they can get more money - so they have to work on "atmosphere", cosmetics, fluff features, rosters, etc etc etc AND make a game that is playable for people who really only have a rough knowledge of football.

People who think there is a "SPREAD OFFENSE" that is only slightly different in application between Hawaii and Florida ("because they both run THE SPREAD, you see?"), who think that the triple option is where you give it the fullback a bunch of times and then you fake it, who don't know the difference between a Cover 1 and a Cover 3, who don't know the difference between a 3 Tech and a 2 Tech, etc etc....
are not going to enjoy playing a game that is a "true sim."
And then you can go up or down with kinda rough-hewn edges of levels of knowledge from there - people who don't know what a veer scheme vs. a zone scheme is, or people who don't know what a Guard is vs. a Tackle, people who don't understand what mixed coverages are, or people who think direct snaps to the running back were invented in 2008 by the Miami Dolphins, etc etc.

and all these people need a game they can understand and therefore can play comfortably.
(and all these sorts of people, to some degree, really are part of THE COMMUNITY here.)

So EA has to balance all this AND balance their checkbook

If I made a college football game, it certainly be much more "sim" than NCAA 10 is.
I just don't know if that's whats in THEIR best interest as a company.

[hcopenhagenh]

The bottom line is the Flexbone offense is still broken. The Flexbone offense is based on a scheme. From the simple concept of having correct line splits to the concept of leaving particular players unblocked. This isn't happening since the OL is just Head on blocking. It makes me want to throw up because EA has butchered this offense.

[sportzbro]

Quote: Originally Posted by stylee

Sounds about right to me. I was told by a mod at NCAAstrategies who personally asked the Devs about unblocked defenders on the option. They told him it wasn't feasible because unblocked defenders "caused AI problems" but it looks like this tackle is at least programmed to step inside first, instead of step straight upfield. So that's a step, I guess.

If this is true... then its absolutely unacceptable. We aren't going to make schemes work correctly because that would mean too much work tweaking the AI.. WOW.

As Rocky said, I'm no programmer, but gameplay should be the #1 thing taken care of... should have been the top priority in 07, 08, & 09, & its looking like 10 as well. I mean I want the game to look cool with presentation, equipment & refs, etc. but we're talking about the guts of the game.

I don't get it. Its what makes the game go. Its the whole reason last gen is still better than anything that has come out since, and why you can still pick it up and play it for hours. I wont even go near the next gen titles.

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by stylee

I don't know... if the hypothetical imperative is to build a true or at least approximate simulation of college football action, then I agree, these sorts of things should be #1 Priority. But that's not NCAA '10s only goal. They also want to appeal to the widest possible fanbase so that they can get more money - so they have to work on "atmosphere", cosmetics, fluff features, rosters, etc etc etc AND make a game that is playable for people who really only have a rough knowledge of football. People who think there is a "SPREAD OFFENSE" that is only slightly different in application between Hawaii and Florida ("because they both run THE SPREAD, you see?"), who think that the triple option is where you give it the fullback a bunch of times and then you fake it, who don't know the difference between a Cover 1 and a Cover 3, who don't know the difference between a 3 Tech and a 2 Tech, etc etc.... are not going to enjoy playing a game that is a "true sim." And then you can go up or down with kinda rough-hewn edges of levels of knowledge from there - people who don't know what a veer scheme vs. a zone scheme is, or people who don't know what a Guard is vs. a Tackle, people who don't understand what mixed coverages are, or people who think direct snaps to the running back were invented in 2008 by the Miami Dolphins, etc etc. and all these people need a game they can understand and therefore can play comfortably. (and all these sorts of people, to some degree, really are part of THE COMMUNITY here.) So EA has to balance all this AND balance their checkbook If I made a college football game, it certainly be much more "sim" than NCAA 10 is. I just don't know if that's whats in THEIR best interest as a company.

I understand that. But the concepts of the triple option aren't that hard to explain to the "casual gamer". I think gamers will pick up on these things if presented to them.

And then there's the question....if you're doing a online dynasty, you're probaly going to care a little bit about gameplay here. If you're an Army or Navy fan or a triple option fan (or spread option for that matter), than you're pretty much SOL about running the playbook realistically (although it's effective).

It's about direction. I think EA is really underestimating the people who want great realistic gameplay.