Run/Pass Commit In Madden NFL 13 - Make it More Realistic

[GiantBlue76]

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

I'm going to hopefully answer part of your question w/o going to Tiburon. Clint Oldenburg, a former NFL OL, is working on line play, at least OL. He redid the ratings for all OL this year and is tuning and tweaking OL this year. I would someone with a NFL background would be a plus.

he's a former offensive lineman, but he's not a programmer, right? Is he doing the actual implementation? Also, I was referring to the defensive lineman (and linebackers). What I find is that guys who do the actual implementation do not build what seems to be the vision of the designer. I also remember Ian Cummings explicitly saying that we can't expect his programmers to be football gurus. I don't agree with that statement, but even if they aren't, they should still have the ability to implement what the designer is creating.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by tazdevil20

Here is a legitimate question - those of you who have actually been to Tiburon would hopefully be able to answer this. When they decide to add something like line crashes in the game, how do they go about designing it? Do they draw these up by talking with NFL coaches? Do they study film to understand how it is supposed to work? In addition, how do they test it? Do they have people there who actually understand what the lineman should be doing for different fronts - or do they simply add the fronts as an aesthetic feature only?

Taz here is the thing. The run commit right/left basically explode the OL blocking, which as hinted by another poster earlier is rather cheesy. For those looking for a simulation I would think they want this to be about gap control. Ideally I think the crash left/right should accomplish this. Unfortunately, these are not designed that way. So what they do is say if you want to defend the run in a realistic way then you gotta completely give up the pass. IMO, that makes no sense. Their process always seems to be win/loss. Either you are going to win or lose. That's way to simplistic. It's like they allow you to play realistic to a certain point then just don't give you the rest. Let's take line crash left/right as an example. Imagine if that worked like run commit left/right does with respect to your DL being independent of the OL. What does this do? If it is based on gaps now you can create a run fit to defend the run, but you get better angles and ideas of creating blitzes. But it's like they say, we can't allow that. Then what is allowed though is spy blitzing, contain blitzing and all that type of stuff that happens on the competitive scene. (the competitive scene to be fair does ban some of this stuff)


My hunch, based on discussions in the past is some things do not get added because of time; other things do not get added because while they will nod their head in agreement, they just do not want to take the game in that direction. Some things do not get added because adding it will break something else.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

The bolded are the only reason why I started the thread Big. I don't like it, but if it is going to be in, give it something that we need in the game from a realistic standpoint although not all of those areas can be covered. But please don't make it arbitrary as it stands now in NCAA. The way it is there is just a complete waste of time IMO.

I completely agree, I was more so commenting on the discussion regarding real football fundamentals in relation to run/pass commit. If people less versed in real football than you, come in thinking that run/pass commit in Madden is fundamentally real football, that could create misunderstandings, imo. That's basically what I meant, that everyone needs to understand that whatever is done to improve run/pass commit short of an overhaul will still likely be unrealistic but if they are willing to overhaul it, it should just be removed, imo.

On topic, I don't know off hand how to make this feature better without completely changing it. As it stands now, I guess the premise of it makes sense in regards to limiting the success of overt repeated plays. The fixes you suggest in the OP don't seem like tuning run/pass commit but completely changing it. I agree with that but I am not sure EA/Tiburon is prepared or able to do it at this point. I think you are suggesting they overhaul it if they insist on keeping but again, I they are willing to overhaul something, it should at least be the adaptive AI, which should mean run/pass commit could be removed.

I hope I making sense. lol

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bootzilla

I'm operating solely on the premise of what is possible based upon what we know EA football to be and ways to address some of its shortcomings in a way that regardless of its implementation nonetheless manifests itself in realistic outcomes. So, if it takes me selling out (run commit) on a run up the middle on 3rd and short so be it. And I don't agree that selling out isn't fundamental to defensive football. It is fundamental. So much so that offenses are designed to take advantages of said aggressive tactics. Heck, if I'm getting run on I'm putting another defender in the box i.e I'm committed to stopping the run. In Madden bringing that extra defender doesn't really help because unless you're controlling that defender he will just be oblivious and retreat to his static start point before he carries out his assignment. So, run commit I hope would at least heighten the awareness of my defenders to play run.

Ok Boot, here is my question then. What have we both said that is in disagreement. We are just talking about different ways of getting there. You mentioned moving a safety down in the box as a "sell out." I wouldn't call that a "sell out." To me that's just a strategic move. You also mentioned that he has no A.I so unless you control him him being in the box is nothing but aesthetic. What I'm describing by giving defenders run fit logic via the run commits makes it where you would not need to control that Safety.

I get where you are operating from and unfortunately, it's probably a better premise than I'm operating from. Everyone says they want a sim game. EA says they want a sim game. I don't see why making defenders hit the next gap over would be a problem. That would make it more sim than people arbitrarily running places left and right. But like you said, that's not where EA is with this. My hope is they will get it there if they want realism.

[GiantBlue76]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Taz here is the thing. The run commit right/left basically explode the OL blocking, which as hinted by another poster earlier is rather cheesy. For those looking for a simulation I would think they want this to be about gap control. Ideally I think the crash left/right should accomplish this. Unfortunately, these are not designed that way. So what they do is say if you want to defend the run in a realistic way then you gotta completely give up the pass. IMO, that makes no sense. Their process always seems to be win/loss. Either you are going to win or lose. That's way to simplistic. It's like they allow you to play realistic to a certain point then just don't give you the rest. Let's take line crash left/right as an example. Imagine if that worked like run commit left/right does with respect to your DL being independent of the OL. What does this do? If it is based on gaps now you can create a run fit to defend the run, but you get better angles and ideas of creating blitzes. But it's like they say, we can't allow that. Then what is allowed though is spy blitzing, contain blitzing and all that type of stuff that happens on the competitive scene. (the competitive scene to be fair does ban some of this stuff) My hunch, based on discussions in the past is some things do not get added because of time; other things do not get added because while they will nod their head in agreement, they just do not want to take the game in that direction. Some things do not get added because adding it will break something else.

This last bolded part is especially concerning. This is what has always given me the impression that Madden is a house of cards. Not wanting to take the game in WHAT direction???? An uber realistic simulation? This is exactly where Tiburon falls short. They can make their game however they want, but those of us clamoring for an ultra realistic rendition get the shaft because there is less of us. 2k doesn't seem to worry about alienating casual fans with their basketball game and they do just fine. Why can't we get that same level from Madden? Not wanting to invest that deeply into developing the game in this way is what will always fuel my angst for this studio - and I know for a fact I am not the only one who feels this way. So depressing...

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by K_GUN

I just want to play a realistic game of football

I think his point is that run commit, as it's designed, is not realistic football, so it should not be in a realistic football game.

And, to me, if the game's front seven worked on football principles, you wouldn't need to be Dick LeBeau or even a former player - it would just work like it should.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tyrant8RDFL

No coordinator does that. What im just trying to say is that a feature like this should be a HR or a strikeout. In all honesty it should not even be in the game, because of what you stated. No one calls a defense like this. The thing is that it is in the game, so I just feel it needs to stay that way it is, so it does not get abused.

The bold makes me wonder:

-Why is it in the game again?
-Why didn't they take the time devoted to putting this in to get some foundation of the front seven working?

But now that it is in the game, I disagree with the all-or-nothing aspect. That negates ratings. A player with high AWR and PRC should be able to tell quicker that the call isn't going to work. He might be the only one or the fastest reactor, but he should still react. He shouldn't turn stupid for the sake of "game balance".

I think it should take players out of position. They'd be on the wrong foot, thinking about something, but then have to recognize they are getting something different, etc, but that shouldn't be an automatic HR for the offense. A single, and double, maybe, if they have good personnel (or facing a bad run defense), but anything after that should be based on what the ball carrier and defense does.

It shouldn't be an automatic strikeout either. If I have a Bo Jackson clone running behind the Hogs combined with the nastiest OLmen of the 70s and a full back that makes Alstott look like a punk with his blocks, even if you commit and guess right, I shouldn't strikeout all the time. Again, you might contain it to a bunt single instead of a triple, but not always for a loss or even no gain.

Sure, since the feature is in, it has to be balanced as though we're playing Starcraft on a football field instead of football, but I don't think that balance should be at the extremes. That's what I think is wrong with Madden as it is - not enough 'good but not great' results.

I would also hope that a talented defense could just avoid this completely. While teams like the Ravens and 49ers are aggressive and "sell out" at times, I'm willing to bet it's not their "way of life" on the defense. Personnel that good should just need good playcalling. The rest is them going to work.

It WOULD be good if you have a bad run defense - you need to "gamble" a little more because straight-up, you get owned. That could create more realistic inconsistency these weak units face with the high chance of being on the losing end. But nothing should be automatic in either direction.

[Bootzilla]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Ok Boot, here is my question then. What have we both said that is in disagreement. We are just talking about different ways of getting there. You mentioned moving a safety down in the box as a "sell out." I wouldn't call that a "sell out." To me that's just a strategic move. You also mentioned that he has no A.I so unless you control him him being in the box is nothing but aesthetic. What I'm describing by giving defenders run fit logic via the run commits makes it where you would not need to control that Safety. I get where you are operating from and unfortunately, it's probably a better premise than I'm operating from. Everyone says they want a sim game. EA says they want a sim game. I don't see why making defenders hit the next gap over would be a problem. That would make it more sim than people arbitrarily running places left and right. But like you said, that's not where EA is with this. My hope is they will get it there if they want realism.

In my response to you in my first post I said I understood where you were coming from. And I agreed with it. I just didn't feel EA could effectively implement what you were suggesting. Not saying what you were suggesting was wrong. So, no we don't really disagree. We just argue the point from a different angle.

So, dealing with the realities that are EA football I'm not against run/pass commit because normal play calling too often falls short because the players don't react to situations as they should.

And I said putting an 8th man in the box is committing to stopping the run, not a sell out. Just emphasizing that you do have to sell out in Madden because the 8th man is just an aesthetic unless you blitz him or manually control him.

We're all trying to get to the same place. As realistic a football sim as we can get while working under the constraints/limitations/parameters of the EA football machine.