Defense logic

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Defense logic

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 >> Defense logic

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Defense logic - 3/18/2005 6:33:31 AM

BCtheQB

Posts: 174
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: BCtheQB
Status: offline

Can defensive linemen key on specific defenders?

does man to man require head up alignment? , causing the dreaded I stack, NT, LB, LB

is there a strong and weak side designation, so that shades and keys go to the side with the greatest threat, not just left or right?

_____________________________

Skagit Valley Lightning, HC, OC, DC, QB,Seattle Stallions 8-3,QB,West Sound Saints, NAFL CHamps,
King County Jaguars 05 NAFL W.Conf Champz,#2inUS
Eastside Hawks 03 #2 in US , 04 #1,#1 in PIFL.

Post #: 1

RE: Defense logic - 3/20/2005 2:16:25 AM

The First Texan

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/2/2005
Status: offline

What up BC!! Woot.

Just chattin up your thread... nothing productive to say though.

I would assume since the guy said that a DEF calls its play based on the OFF's "formation data" ..there is no need for strong side/weak side declaration. If they line up tight to the right then the strong side is to the right ... and you will have plays ready for that. And then if they line up tight to the left the same.

What do you mean by greatest threat?

I am not sold yet that the gameplan manager is all that comprehensive... but I guess we will have to wait until the game comes out. You can make about 200 different formations without using motion..so if you throw in pre-snap shifts and motion that can make a lot unique looks.

(in reply to BCtheQB)

Post #: 2

RE: Defense logic - 3/21/2005 1:21:10 AM

BCtheQB

Posts: 174
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: BCtheQB
Status: offline

in certain formations yes, but in these formations, and these are just the first 4
I came up with off the top of my head, Id label them but Ive been in
over 14 programs that called them all something different

X............T..G..C..G..T..TE
........H............Q.....................Z

...................... F

X.................T..G..C..G..T..TE
.....Z...H...............Q............

.......................... F

X............T..G..C..G..T............Z
............H........Q.........Y

..................... F

X.................T..G..C..G..T................TE
.....Z...H...............Q............

.......................... F

which side is a strength is debatable depending on run or pass ,
this is why I mentioned the greatest threat,

because in the 1st two formations,
the run strength is one side,
and the pass strength is on the other,
and the 3rd formation there is no conventional
TE, and if you align solely on the TE
regardless of other factors, the 4th formation
Trips open, with TE flexed will kill you
because the TE is neither the run or pass strength

and if you wind up playing say a Cover 3 strong zone,
a covrage designed to avoid formational overload mismatches

you tell your corners outside 3rd, great
you tell your free safety deep mid, great
but if you tell your SS to line up on the TE,
you LOSE against the bottom 3 formations

im not saying its something a coach cant figure out, AND HAD BETTER GO OVER with his players, but you can easily see how something so simple, and integral to the game
can be malsupported or unsupported altogether in a sim

if the cpu is picking the strength,
I need to know what its based on
but too simple a rule,
with obvious exceptions everywhere
fertilizes the field
that AI busters grow in

< Message edited by BCtheQB -- 3/21/2005 5:25:28 PM >

_____________________________

Skagit Valley Lightning, HC, OC, DC, QB,Seattle Stallions 8-3,QB,West Sound Saints, NAFL CHamps,
King County Jaguars 05 NAFL W.Conf Champz,#2inUS
Eastside Hawks 03 #2 in US , 04 #1,#1 in PIFL.

(in reply to The First Texan)

Post #: 3

RE: Defense logic - 3/22/2005 6:10:51 AM

The First Texan

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/2/2005
Status: offline

Yeah it should be fine. The guy ( Winter ) said that your defense will call a play based on the package and "formation data" that the offense selects.

So in your game plan you would have straight up percentages for each formation.

in formation 1: you would have 20% DEF A 20% DEF B 60% DEF C

And different percentages for the next 3 formations.

Or maybe the defensive Plays actually are like 7 different plays in one based on the formation and package presented???

either way so long as the defense minds what the formation is..you should always be able to set their logic to defend how you want them too.

(in reply to BCtheQB)

Post #: 4

RE: Defense logic - 3/22/2005 6:18:26 AM

The First Texan

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/2/2005
Status: offline

also why is it that people call a split TE "flex" ... it's split dammit. Tight Split. Tight on the line or Split from the line. Open or Close(d).

Flex is an invert call. I know that crap started somewhere west of the mountains... I wanna say BYU, but I could be mistaken.

(in reply to The First Texan)

Post #: 5

RE: Defense logic - 3/23/2005 12:24:16 AM

buckup

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/16/2005
Status: offline

Mormons....that would explain it.

(in reply to The First Texan)

Post #: 6

RE: Defense logic - 3/23/2005 9:10:17 PM

Marauders

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: The First Texan

also why is it that people call a split TE "flex" ... it's split dammit. Tight Split. Tight on the line or Split from the line. Open or Close(d).

Correct.

An end that is split from the tackle is a split end no matter which player is playing there.

There is also talk about slot backs which are flankers lined up inside of the end and in the slot.

Canadian rules formations often have multiple slot backs though, so CFL fans use the term often.

< Message edited by Marauders -- 3/23/2005 9:15:23 PM >

(in reply to The First Texan)

Post #: 7

RE: Defense logic - 3/25/2005 7:51:39 AM

buckup

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/16/2005
Status: offline

I can't believe no one bit on the mormon thing...

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 8

RE: Defense logic - 3/27/2005 4:39:33 AM

The First Texan

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/2/2005
Status: offline

yeah I got it... I guess...but I couldn't think of anything to add to it .

hmm I guess this game really has a hardcore Canadian following..maybe I should start a new thread on that... I think I will.

(in reply to buckup)

Post #: 9

RE: Defense logic - 5/12/2005 11:08:09 PM

BCtheQB

Posts: 174
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: BCtheQB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The First Texan

also why is it that people call a split TE "flex" ... it's split dammit. Tight Split. Tight on the line or Split from the line. Open or Close(d).

Flex is an invert call. I know that crap started somewhere west of the mountains... I wanna say BYU, but I could be mistaken.

Ive heard FLEX, NASTY, OPEN, I use ROck and Lock in my dbl wing set nomenclature
Split is poor because some systems use a split end, or us that term for backfield set, instead of pro,because they use pro to designate the wingback alignment0and so on and so on..., In my offense ,next the tackle is just our base set, so much so that we dont even call it, we only call modifications on this set, saves about 6 seconds per play clock

< Message edited by BCtheQB -- 5/12/2005 11:09:14 PM >

_____________________________

Skagit Valley Lightning, HC, OC, DC, QB,Seattle Stallions 8-3,QB,West Sound Saints, NAFL CHamps,
King County Jaguars 05 NAFL W.Conf Champz,#2inUS
Eastside Hawks 03 #2 in US , 04 #1,#1 in PIFL.

(in reply to The First Texan)

Post #: 10