The Return of Formation Subs in Madden NFL 17

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by Millennium

That's not the way CFM works. CFM online/offline are supposed to (with the exception of last year being a lack of the XP sliders) one in the same. You can't just implement one without the other at this point. Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

It could be an if then else check for just the editing of formation subs. I'm not sure why you can't implement something in just offline (or online). Honestly, I don't see making an if check with different conditions for selecting substitute players as that difficult.

I obviously don't know what their code looks like, but for the life of me, I can't see why it would be very difficult. Maybe a Madden developer could shed some light. I would like to hear from a Madden developer directly, because anything that a non Madden developer (like CMHooe) would say would be purely speculation.

[Millennium]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

It could be an if then else check for just the editing of formation subs. I'm not sure why you can't implement something in just offline (or online). Honestly, I don't see making an if check with different conditions for selecting substitute players as that difficult. I obviously don't know what their code looks like, but for the life of me, I can't see why it would be very difficult. Maybe a Madden developer could shed some light. I would like to hear from a Madden developer directly, because anything that a non Madden developer (like CMHooe) would say would be purely speculation.

But you're not going to get code talk from devs (outside of 'Yes this is possible' 'No it's not') normally because, as most game studios are, they are protective of their code.

Which is (as you said) why we can't speculate on the ease of making this offline/online. What I can say is that it was late enough in the cycle to force it to a patch (which shows just how important it was to them to get any of the functionality in) so I'm certain that the timeline they had for implementation and QA was not much.

[Millennium]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauer4MVP

Why WOULDN'T you assume that? Take NBA 2k's team play or even go back to team play on previous Madden's. You go into with the caution that there may be someone that doesn't quite know what they're doing, ball hogging, exploiting stuff, etc. It's the same thing if you join a random CFM on Madden or any sports game. You should be expecting to have some user that isn't going to play the game the way you want it. If you aren't, that really is your fault. It's so easy to find leagues with some rules. Just google "join madden 16 cfm" and you'll find all kinds of results. Though, I honestly would recommend those people to come here because the passion of sports games lives here. We can probably at least agree on that.

If I join a random CFM my expectation is that you can do anything within normal gameplay to win (bunting in MLB, "money plays" in Madden/NBA). But I don't expect to see things like Tom Brady playing DT without some type of punishment (see MLB The Show's specific out of position animations). This is why NBA 2K has restrictions on size of players at certain positions (something they were PRAISED for) - they had a ton of issues with 7 foot point guards.

At some point in the future I can see the implementation of lack of restrictions - but this was a last minute add (as seen with the fact that this was a patch) so keeping some semblance of gameplay balance has to be the priority THEN add extra pieces once you know the feature you have added works.

I agree with you that I would absolutely send people here for a more sim experience, but I also acknowledge that there are many people that don't even know we are a thing.

[djp73]

i have recently decided to use the cardinals this season and this will be great for my front 7!!

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by Millennium

But you're not going to get code talk from devs (outside of 'Yes this is possible' 'No it's not') normally because, as most game studios are, they are protective of their code. Which is (as you said) why we can't speculate on the ease of making this offline/online. What I can say is that it was late enough in the cycle to force it to a patch (which shows just how important it was to them to get any of the functionality in) so I'm certain that the timeline they had for implementation and QA was not much.

I'm not looking for them to give me code snippets, just reasoning on why it would or would not be difficult. And if there are technical limitations on why it might be difficult.

They did do this late in this cycle. And it did leave a tight schedule for testing. I'm not arguing that at all. Just saying that with all my experience, in my mind, I can see how I would do it. And that I believe it should be very possible.

I'm not criticizing that they didn't do it for this patch. Just saying I believe it could be a very possible thing to do and reasonable to ask for. Any criticism I have over formation subs isn't with them adding it in this first patch, it would be with the company itself for taking a decade to add back (saving of formation subs) something that is so important to team/roster management in a CFM (and probably to MUT as well).

[Millennium]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

I'm not looking for them to give me code snippets, just reasoning on why it would or would not be difficult. And if there are technical limitations on why it might be difficult. They did do this late in this cycle. And it did leave a tight schedule for testing. I'm not arguing that at all. Just saying that with all my experience, in my mind, I can see how I would do it. And that I believe it should be very possible. I'm not criticizing that they didn't do it for this patch. Just saying I believe it could be a very possible thing to do and reasonable to ask for. Any criticism I have over formation subs isn't with them adding it in this first patch, it would be with the company itself for taking a decade to add back (saving of formation subs) something that is so important to team/roster management in a CFM (and probably to MUT as well).

I should also state that it is a feature that I want to see in the future (I think everyone commenting here wants to see more options at all times) as long as it can be controlled by a commissioner. The Game Changer responsible (yes, as much as you guys rag on them a GAME CHANGER was responsible for coordinating the community efforts to get this in the game) has stated already that he wants more commissioner control in CFM (search #CFMMovement on Twitter and you'll see plenty of discussion on it) and this was one of the things discussed.

One last thing is dev interaction - I think we get a bit spoiled at times at just how accessible this team is. They're accessible to make the game better, but I'd never expect them to explain their design choices or the abilities they have/don't have. RG has stated on Twitter that he is looking into the restrictions and I believe we should be satisfied with that acknowledgement.

[bigboyc]

WR at HB? Name 2 - WRs that get 20 carries a season in the NFL. There are formations in the game already where a WR lines up at HB.....to go out into a route, use that if you want. Otherwise, some people want to cheese by having a 97 speed WR in the backfield. Same goes for Safety at LB. Use the sub formations where this occurs. NO safety in the league plays the majority of their time at a LB position. More cheese....people wanting to put 90 speed safeties close to the line of scrimmage for blitzing and contain purposes. Again...use the sub packages.

[bigboyc]

BTW...JJ Watt played very little TE last season vs 2014. He won't play ANY TE this season....coming off a back injury.