Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Potential issue with M2M coverage

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> Maximum-Football 2.0 >> Play Development System (PDS) >> Potential issue with M2M coverage Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 5:46:32 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		I have some defenses set up with a nickel package in man to man. It is set up like this:

CB1 Speed #1 Either
CB2 Speed #2 Either
DB1 Speed #3 Either
SA1 Speed #4 Either
SA2 Speed #5 Either

This should make every eligible receiver covered. In the play design editor, it works fine.

However, in game situations, it doesn't always work. Against a 2 receiver/2 TE/1 back set, sometimes the running back is double covered and one of the TE's is not covered. It seems like it depends on the team that I play. I can only reproduce the problem when playing certain teams against certain teams. Maybe there is an issue if two eligible receivers have the same speed rating and that's screwing things up somehow????
Post #: 1
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 6:50:37 PM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

Maybe there is an issue if two eligible receivers have the same speed rating and that's screwing things up somehow????


That's the first thing I thought of.

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 2
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 6:55:53 PM   
Scott_WAR

 

Posts: 1020
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline 		I havent brought it up, becasue I also cant pin down when it happens, but I have noticed this also.

I initially set up defenses specifically to cover specific groups of players. I had a play for 5 WR(0 TE, 0 RB, 5 WR). I had a different play for 4 WR and a RB(0 TE, 1 RB, 4 WR). However, I noticed that when the team was coming out with 5 WR, sometimes the AI wouldnt call the appropriate play, even though it was the only play in that defensive situation group(0 TE,0 RB,5 WR). This would a lot of the time leave a WR completely uncovered.

I thought initially the problem was maybe if a team had 4 WR and a RB, but were lining the RB at a WR spot(split wide), but that wasnt it. The defense profile was calling the wrong play for the players on the field.

< Message edited by Scott_WAR -- 1/22/2008 6:58:03 PM >

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 3
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 7:09:49 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		In my case, it's not even an issue of the wrong play being called.  My defenses are made to adjust to multiple formations.  The way I have it set up should work fine....and it does in most cases.  The only time it doesn't is what appears to be situations where two eligible receivers have the same speed (I'm guessing that's the problem but I don't know for sure).

(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 4
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 7:13:45 PM   
Scott_WAR

 

Posts: 1020
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline 		If thats the problem, a little good ole fashioned scouting will alow you to adapt your defense. Look at the team you are going to plays WR and their speed, if any match, then use another stat to choose which DB covers which WR, catching for example. If their fastest guy is their 3rd best at catching, have you fasted DB cover the 3rd best at catching................

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 5
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 8:13:20 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

If thats the problem, a little good ole fashioned scouting will alow you to adapt your defense. Look at the team you are going to plays WR and their speed, if any match, then use another stat to choose which DB covers which WR, catching for example. If their fastest guy is their 3rd best at catching, have you fasted DB cover the 3rd best at catching................



The problem is that I have something like 40 defenses set up like this. So I would have to go through all 40 and change them all just to prepare for one team.

Even scouting won't always work anyway. Let's say I have something set up for a 3 receiver/1 TE/1 back set. Let's say when the halfback is in, everything is fine, but when the fullback is in, everything gets screwed up because the FB and TE have the same speed. If a team has half plays with one fullback and half plays with one halfback, then that's a problem.

And in some leagues, other coaches playbooks aren't publically available (unlike the MFL), so you are unable to scout ahead of time.

I really hope this is something that should be fixed eventually. The game should be able to assign a hierarchy to receivers of the same speed, so that this doesn't happen. Of course, I'm assuming this is where the problem is stemming from.


(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 6
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 8:15:14 PM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

I initially set up defenses specifically to cover specific groups of players. I had a play for 5 WR(0 TE, 0 RB, 5 WR). I had a different play for 4 WR and a RB(0 TE, 1 RB, 4 WR). However, I noticed that when the team was coming out with 5 WR, sometimes the AI wouldnt call the appropriate play, even though it was the only play in that defensive situation group(0 TE,0 RB,5 WR). This would a lot of the time leave a WR completely uncovered.


This is a gameplan issue rather than a play issue.  We'll have to check it out, but it isn't related to man coverage per se.

(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 7
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 8:21:13 PM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

However, in game situations, it doesn't always work. Against a 2 receiver/2 TE/1 back set, sometimes the running back is double covered and one of the TE's is not covered. It seems like it depends on the team that I play. I can only reproduce the problem when playing certain teams against certain teams. Maybe there is an issue if two eligible receivers have the same speed rating and that's screwing things up somehow????


Are you sure that there is no MAN coverage SPEED 0?
Are you sure that the TE is not covered deep?
Which player is supposed to cover whom?

I have been trying out a test play to duplicate this against 3 receivers with the same speed, but so far the coverage is correct.

I'll run more tests.

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 8
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 9:07:46 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders

quote:

However, in game situations, it doesn't always work. Against a 2 receiver/2 TE/1 back set, sometimes the running back is double covered and one of the TE's is not covered. It seems like it depends on the team that I play. I can only reproduce the problem when playing certain teams against certain teams. Maybe there is an issue if two eligible receivers have the same speed rating and that's screwing things up somehow????


Are you sure that there is no MAN coverage SPEED 0?
Are you sure that the TE is not covered deep?
Which player is supposed to cover whom?

I have been trying out a test play to duplicate this against 3 receivers with the same speed, but so far the coverage is correct.

I'll run more tests.




It's set up exactly the way I described in my 1st post.

I would send the plays and league file to you but I'm at work right now so I'll have to do it later. But I was using the most recent league file from the MLF league (MLF league), playing Toronto (with my playbook) against Chicago. It happens when I play a quick play game, having the computer coach both teams.

The TE is not covered at all. There is nobody lined up on him. This happens in offensive sets that have 2 TE, 2 WR's, and 1 running back.

Regarding speed 0, I don't have any man coverage speed 0 set up. It's set up 1-5.

This doesn't seem to happen with other teams. So far it only happens when I play Toronto vs. Chicago, when Chicago is in the above type of offensive set.

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 9
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 9:18:02 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		One other thing.  The last time I let the quick play run (computer vs computer) in the above situation, it seemed that the issue didn't occur until the SECOND offensive possession.  I would have to double check to make sure.  I was watching closely and the first time Toronto was on defense, I didn't see any problems in coverage.  But then on the second time they were on defense, then I noticed the uncovered TE.  And this continues throughout the rest of the game.

But again, only happens with Toronto vs Chicago, Chicago in a 2 TE/2 WR/1 back set.  Doesn't happen with any other teams that I've played against each other (Toronto vs Orlando, Toronto vs Montreal, Las Vegas vs Birmingham in NCFL, San Francisco vs various teams in US NFL league that comes with the game)

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 10
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 11:10:01 PM   
Deft

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline 		HA HA HA!!! I was having the same problem, with Chicago last night as I was scouting for the playoffs. I also ran my m2m defenses against his team and plays and also saw his TE2 not being covered.  I think it might be caused by the second TE and the QB having the same speed.  (Vovak QB Speed 80= Fox TE Speed 80)



< Message edited by Marauders -- 1/24/2008 6:11:59 AM >

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 11
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/22/2008 11:16:34 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deft

HA HA HA!!! I was having the same problem, with Chicago last night as I was scouting for the playoffs. I also ran my m2m defenses against his team and plays and also saw his TE2 not being covered.  I think it might be caused by the second TE being slower than the QB. 


I think you're right about the TE/QB issue. In my defenses, I noticed 2 guys lined up over the running back and I assumed they were double covering the running back. But I bet one of them is covering the QB instead.

< Message edited by Marauders -- 1/24/2008 6:12:24 AM >

(in reply to Deft)
Post #: 12
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 12:17:39 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		I didn't even realize that the M2M coverage in the game included the QB. I thought you had to use the "Key On QB" command to get someone to cover the QB.
Post #: 13
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 12:41:17 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

I didn't even realize that the M2M coverage in the game included the QB.


At one time it did, but there was a change made some time ago to exclude the QB.

There may be a an small issue here, and David is looking into it.

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 14
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 1:29:49 AM   
David Winter

 

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yngvai

I didn't even realize that the M2M coverage in the game included the QB. I thought you had to use the "Key On QB" command to get someone to cover the QB.




The QB is ignored. If you set the M2M cover to line up on Backfield or Either, the QB is left out of the checks.

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 15
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 1:47:39 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David Winter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yngvai

I didn't even realize that the M2M coverage in the game included the QB. I thought you had to use the "Key On QB" command to get someone to cover the QB.




The QB is ignored. If you set the M2M cover to line up on Backfield or Either, the QB is left out of the checks.


Hmmmm. Then I wonder what's causing this issue. When I get home tonight I'll send you the league file and plays to illustrate what I'm talking about.

(in reply to David Winter)
Post #: 16
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 1:53:56 AM   
David Winter

 

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline 		That would be helpful.

The switch logic to ignore the QB is pretty simple and was tested quite a lot before 2.0 was released. That's not to say that there isn't some case we never tested and something else is placing a defender on the QB at some other point in the presnap routines. If you can show me how you have your play setup, I might be able to find what's causing it.

thanks
David

< Message edited by David Winter -- 1/23/2008 1:55:09 AM >

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 17
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 6:49:10 AM   
David Winter

 

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline 		thanks. I'll take a look.
Post #: 18
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:11:24 AM   
Shaggyra


Posts: 608
Joined: 2/10/2006
Status: offline 		This is a screenshot of the current recieving stats in th MLF.  Notice the number of TE leading the league with catches.  I think to single one play out is not quite fair and to say I have been "rolling over" the MLF......I don't know what to say.......



There may be a problem with covering the TE. Just don't bring me into it. Or a least ask me first before my playbook is used as some example.

< Message edited by Shaggyra -- 1/23/2008 7:13:52 AM >

_____________________________

FBMax for Maximum Football
Post #: 19
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:42:26 AM   
Deft

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline 		Shaggy, I would take it as a compliment. I don't want you to think we are singling out your playbook because as you point out it could just be an under riding current in the league that no one picked up on. I made a test play with a new formation using the same set (1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR) and you can see the TE1 on the left is uncovered in a 1-5 either M2M scheme.

(in reply to Shaggyra)
Post #: 20
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:48:16 AM   
Shaggyra


Posts: 608
Joined: 2/10/2006
Status: offline 		Sorry, man....having a bad day anyway....

_____________________________

FBMax for Maximum Football

(in reply to Deft)
Post #: 21
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:49:23 AM   
Deft

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline 		Here is a similar formation but with only 1TE, 3 WR, 1 RB and a similar defense.


(in reply to Deft)
Post #: 22
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 8:12:10 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		I hope you don't think anyone here is criticizing your plays. There's nothing wrong with your plays. There's an obvious bug in the game.

Your playbook is not the only one I discovered this problem with. I actually did a quick game against Tulsa and found the same issue with guys being uncovered.

For some reason the QB is getting covered rather than the appropriate receiver. I'm sure David will find where the problem is occurring.

(in reply to Shaggyra)
Post #: 23
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 8:18:33 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		That's interesting. There's obviously something going on with the defense not properly covering in 2 TE sets. And that might partly explain why so many TE's are leading the league in catches.

(in reply to Deft)
Post #: 24
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 8:55:55 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		OK, I did some messing around, and this issue is NOT limited to tight ends.

Against a 2 WR/3 RB set, the same problem happens. The R1, R2, HB and FB are covered, but the 3B is not covered. I tried this with 2 teams (Tulsa and Toronto) and it happened in both cases.

However, it doesn't look like the QB is getting covered by the 5th M2M defender. I had the QB do a rollout and the defender did not follow him. The 5th defender just seems to stand there in the middle of the field, as if he doesn't have an assignment.

The issue does not seem to be related to similar player speeds. The R1, R2, HB, FB, 3B, and QB all have different speeds.


(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 25
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:18:43 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

However, it doesn't look like the QB is getting covered by the 5th M2M defender. I had the QB do a rollout and the defender did not follow him. The 5th defender just seems to stand there in the middle of the field, as if he doesn't have an assignment.


This has been tested, and the code has been checked.  The QB is not being covered.

quote:

The issue does not seem to be related to similar player speeds. The R1, R2, HB, FB, 3B, and QB all have different speeds.


I checked several instances with players having the same speed, and I did not see the issue.

quote:

OK, I did some messing around, and this issue is NOT limited to tight ends.

Against a 2 WR/3 RB set, the same problem happens. The R1, R2, HB and FB are covered, but the 3B is not covered. I tried this with 2 teams (Tulsa and Toronto) and it happened in both cases.


All right, that is good to know.  Thank you for your help with this issue.

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 26
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:23:06 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		I did some more experimenting.

If I test Chicago with a 3 RB/2 WR set, TWO running backs are uncovered...the FB and the 3B. Both defenders stand in the middle of the field as if they don't have an assignment.

I tried it with CATCHING EITHER 1-5 and couldn't produce the problem. So it may be isolated to speed (although I didn't test other variables like strength...and I didn't test a large number of teams).

What's also weird is how the problem varies between teams. For example, with Toronto running a 3 RB set, the 3B goes uncovered. With Chicago running the SAME 3 RB set, TWO backs are uncovered...the 3B and the FB.

With Toronto running a 2 TE/1 back/2 receiver set, there is no problems. But with Chicago running the same set, one TE is not covered.

Very strange.


(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 27
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:35:15 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline 		Is the coverage on the play set prior to a Move To: command or after?

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 28
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 4:08:34 PM   
sthchaseer

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 1/23/2008
Status: offline 		New to this but no stranger to FBPRO98.

This sounds a lot like one of the AI busters found in the FBPRO series.

If in the initial formation you start with an eligible receiver, ie a TE as an example, covered, ie, another offensive player lines up on the LOS outside of that TE. The game might be treating that player as an inelligble receiver. If you then UNCOVER or move the player lined up outside the TE off the LOS, the TE in this case is not elligible. The offense recognizes this, the defense does not. This can leave a Receiver uncovered in any M2M coverage. This would apply to any type of receiver whether it is a TE, WR, RB, or FB.

Initial Set
w     wxxxxx      w

Shifted Set

          wxxxxx    w
w

Note, I have not looked at the play(s) in question. This is just a similar issue that I remembered occured in the old FBPRO series.
Post #: 29
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 5:36:02 PM   
Shaggyra


Posts: 608
Joined: 2/10/2006
Status: offline 		Not even close.  There is no motion on these plays, nobody covered, etc.  This is a problem that only occurs in some man to man situations when there are 2 TE on the filed.  (Maybe also a 3rd RB)

The AI buster you mention is not a legal play under any rules anyway.  The type of plays in question are all legal under both NFL and NCAA rules.  It's just that the game cannot seem to handle it sometimes.



_____________________________

FBMax for Maximum Football

(in reply to sthchaseer)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> Maximum-Football 2.0 >> Play Development System (PDS) >> Potential issue with M2M coverage Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.359