Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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) >> RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 6:10:44 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		Nope, there are no move to commands at all.

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 31
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 6:16:03 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		This is not the same as what happened with FBPRO.

The plays are in perfectly legal formations, 7 men on the LOS, no covered eligible receivers. So that's not the issue.

There's something going on with 2 TE sets and 3 RB sets, and it's not happening consistently between different teams.

(in reply to sthchaseer)
Post #: 32
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:08:27 PM   
Scott_WAR

 

Posts: 1020
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline 		I am wondering if this is an issue with plays created using the PDS prior to version 2?


--for example, an offense made with an earlier PDS vs a defense made with the current PDS.

< Message edited by Scott_WAR -- 1/23/2008 7:16:30 PM >
Post #: 33
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:27:21 PM   
Shaggyra


Posts: 608
Joined: 2/10/2006
Status: offline 		Scott,
You may have hit on something there.  I'm not sure exactly when these plays were made or it even might be from a beta tester build of the PDS.  I can't really remember for sure.

_____________________________

FBMax for Maximum Football

(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 34
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:31:29 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		Well, the way to test that would be to make a offensive formation from scratch in the new PDS, using one of the MLF teams that this issue seems to occur with. If the problem doesn't occur, then we may be on to something. I'd try it right now but I'm at work.

(in reply to Shaggyra)
Post #: 35
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:32:55 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		Still, I'm not so sure that's the issue. This problem doesn't occur with every team. If I run these formations/plays with San Francisco in the US NFL that comes with the game, this problem doesn't happen.

(in reply to Shaggyra)
Post #: 36
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 7:45:22 PM   
Marauders

 

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

Listen, I'm not trying to be a bitch.  It's just with all this focus and sharing of my playbook and ways to stop a particular play or two when I have a division title on the line and playoffs coming up seems kind of wrong to me.


That is understandable.  I am unsure of the MLF rules, but in my old league, playbooks from other teams could not be used in practice.

In this situation, we are just trying to hunt down the situations that cause this in any playbook.

quote:

Develop and use something similar.


I have similar plays set up, and I have been in contact with David through the private board and IM.

quote:

Marauders, I will send you a copy of the playbook if you would like.  I know you have good intentions.


I may not need them.  Could you check the creation dates on those play files if you have them?


(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 37
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 8:19:28 PM   
Scott_WAR

 

Posts: 1020
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yngvai

Still, I'm not so sure that's the issue. This problem doesn't occur with every team. If I run these formations/plays with San Francisco in the US NFL that comes with the game, this problem doesn't happen.




But see those teams you mention may be using plays created prior to version 2............ while other teams arent, or something similiar.

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 38
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 8:46:37 PM   
David Winter

 

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

A bit of explanation as to how the game code works might help here.

The defense doesn't look for whether or not an offensive formation is legal. It looks for what I call PositionID. A PositionID is not the player tag you see like FB, HB, RB3, TE1, or TE2. Those are specific player tags. A PositionID is the more global classification of RunningBack, TightEnd, Receiver. TE1 & TE2 are just classified as TightEnds.

What happens when a defender is told to line up on a TightEnd is that the code will loop through all the players on the offensive side of the ball and flag each player object that has been given the TightEnd classification. It then takes those flagged players and drops them into an array that is then sorted by the skill the defender was told to look for. From there, if a Defender is told to line up on the 2nd fastest TE, he'll grab the 2nd player out of the array and line up on that player.

In the case where a defender is told to line up on the 3rd fastest backfield player, and the offensive formation has fewer than 3 backfield players (QB's are ignored) then that player will automatically default into a [READ] state so that he doesn't end up just standing around.

In the case where two players have the same value for the sorting skill, they're still sorted according to skill, but the two players with the same skill value are in the array in the same order they were loaded.

So a couple of key points.
- The defense doesn't look to see if an offensive formation is legal.

- If you take a player that is designated by the PDS as TE1, and put him in the backfield or off near the sidelines in a WR position, the defense still sees him as a TE. The defense doesn't read the formation to try and figure out who the ~real~ TE is. This point likely isn't at all the cause for this potential problem, but just a key point to keep in mind. I have seen some reports of defenders not lining up on the correct player when actually he was, but the target player was in the "wrong place".

- The Cover Hot option on the M2M dialog can override the results of the line up on test. If there is a 'hot receiver' that the offense is using a lot, and the defender is told to both 'Cover Hot' and he's also told to line up on the 3rd fastest guy, he'll cover the hot player leaving the 3rd fastest guy possibly un covered. 

- A defensive play doesn't change when used for one team or another. All teams will process the same play file in exactly the same way. Where differences will occure is obviously with the skills of the players on that team executing the play file. 

I'll keep watching this thread. It's certainly possible (and seemlingly likely) that something odd is going on. Different results for different teams just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Thanks to everyone for their help in this investigation.

Finally...Welcome sthchaseer.

thanks
David

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 39
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:30:50 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		When I get home from work, this is what I'm going to try.

1. I will create a 2 WR/3 RB formation from scratch in the PDS. I will run it against the EITHER SPEED 1-5 coverage, using Toronto, Chicago, and Tulsa from the MLF, and then with San Francisco from the U.S. NFL that comes with the leage. I will report my results here. I will also take screen captures so you can see what's going on.

2. If creating the formation from scratch fixes the problem, then it's obviously a pre/post version 2.0 play issue. If it doesn't fix the problem, then the issue lies elsewhere.

3. I will post the speeds of the covered and uncovered players.

(in reply to David Winter)
Post #: 40
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:41:37 PM   
Deft

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

I am wondering if this is an issue with plays created using the PDS prior to version 2?


--for example, an offense made with an earlier PDS vs a defense made with the current PDS.


No, the plays I made earlier in this thread with an unguarded TE were brand new with post 2.0 version. But the team and league are ported over from previous versions. It could be caused by a disconnect on that end but not on the play design itself.

(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 41
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:43:40 PM   
Deft

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yngvai

When I get home from work, this is what I'm going to try.

1. I will create a 2 WR/3 RB formation from scratch in the PDS. I will run it against the EITHER SPEED 1-5 coverage, using Toronto, Chicago, and Tulsa from the MLF, and then with San Francisco from the U.S. NFL that comes with the leage. I will report my results here. I will also take screen captures so you can see what's going on.

2. If creating the formation from scratch fixes the problem, then it's obviously a pre/post version 2.0 play issue. If it doesn't fix the problem, then the issue lies elsewhere.

3. I will post the speeds of the covered and uncovered players.


I run almost exclusively 3RB sets to allow me to handoff to three players and have not seen this issues using EITHER coverages.

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 42
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:50:04 PM   
Yngvai


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

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

But see those teams you mention may be using plays created prior to version 2............ while other teams arent, or something similiar.



Well, no, that's not the issue. You see, I took some of the MLF playbooks and gave them to teams in a US NFL league I'm running on my computer. I was running San Fransisco. This problem did not occur. Or maybe it did and I didn't notice it.

Some more testing will help figure this out.

It's totally baffling why results seem to be different with different teams. Like I said, with the 3 RB set, one RB is uncovered with Tulsa or Toronto, but two RB's are left uncovered with Toronto. This is with the same play/defense combination!



(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 43
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:51:16 PM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		Yeah, maybe the league import did something. That would explain why I noticed the problem in the MLF but not in the NFL.

(in reply to Deft)
Post #: 44
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 9:56:11 PM   
Yngvai


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

ORIGINAL: Deft


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yngvai

When I get home from work, this is what I'm going to try.

1. I will create a 2 WR/3 RB formation from scratch in the PDS. I will run it against the EITHER SPEED 1-5 coverage, using Toronto, Chicago, and Tulsa from the MLF, and then with San Francisco from the U.S. NFL that comes with the leage. I will report my results here. I will also take screen captures so you can see what's going on.

2. If creating the formation from scratch fixes the problem, then it's obviously a pre/post version 2.0 play issue. If it doesn't fix the problem, then the issue lies elsewhere.

3. I will post the speeds of the covered and uncovered players.


I run almost exclusively 3RB sets to allow me to handoff to three players and have not seen this issues using EITHER coverages.


That's weird because I did a quick play game for Toronto vs Tulsa yesterday and I noticed one of the backs being totally uncovered (leading to some big plays and scores). So I went into the play editor to test the 3 RB sets and saw the same issue.

Again, I'll run my tests as soon as I get home and I'll report them here.


(in reply to Deft)
Post #: 45
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 10:49:43 PM   
Yngvai


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

ORIGINAL: Deft



No, the plays I made earlier in this thread with an unguarded TE were brand new with post 2.0 version. But the team and league are ported over from previous versions. It could be caused by a disconnect on that end but not on the play design itself.


The more I think about it, the more I think this may be where the problem is stemming from. I have not noticed this problem with the U.S. NFL, or Gary's NCFL league. I'll test again tonight to make sure, but it only seems to happen with the MLF league. This tells me there's an issue going on with the player ratings in that league. Maybe something happened on the import over to version 2.0?


(in reply to Deft)
Post #: 46
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/23/2008 11:45:04 PM   
Deft

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline 		One thing is the original roster was ported over from another program.  You will notice some players names are in lower case (made pre MLF move) while others are in upper case (made post MLF move)

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 47
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 2:01:13 AM   
garysorrell


Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/29/2005
Status: offline 		As Chicago is my opponent this week, let me know what you guys find out ;-)

_____________________________


(in reply to Deft)
Post #: 48
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 2:04:04 AM   
garysorrell


Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/29/2005
Status: offline 		Although I do agree with Shaggyra. Couldnt we have pulled this play from the playbook and focused on it without the emphasis on whos it was from?

This is why i've been slow in dealing with the open playbooks issue in the NCFL.



_____________________________


(in reply to garysorrell)
Post #: 49
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 2:37:23 AM   
Yngvai


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

ORIGINAL: garysorrell

Although I do agree with Shaggyra. Couldnt we have pulled this play from the playbook and focused on it without the emphasis on whos it was from?




If you note in my original post, I did not mention any teams or playbooks. Here is an excerpt from my original post:

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????

I did not mention the team or league until further down the thread, as Marauder was having trouble reproducing the problem. I had to give more information to allow reproduction of the problem.

It appears this is NOT an issue with a particular play or set of plays, which is why just posting a single play doesn't help narrow the problem. It may be more related to a problem in the league file itself. I will not know until I get a chance to test them out with different leagues.


< Message edited by Yngvai -- 1/24/2008 2:41:09 AM >

(in reply to garysorrell)
Post #: 50
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 3:14:11 AM   
Shaggyra


Posts: 608
Joined: 2/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: garysorrell

As Chicago is my opponent this week, let me know what you guys find out ;-)



Yikes!!! Go easy on me please.

_____________________________

FBMax for Maximum Football

(in reply to garysorrell)
Post #: 51
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 4:12:01 AM   
David Winter

 

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

I have tried a few combinations of formations and I'm afraid I'm unable to reproduce any problems. One of the offensive formations that was called out as being problematic was 2WR/2TE/1HB

The image attached shows a defense against that formation. The defensive settings are;

CB1 = non-backfield SPD1
CB2 = non-backfield SPD2
OL1 = non-backfield SPD3
OL2 = non-backfield SPD4
IL1 = backfield SPD1

The remainder defenders are in either zone or read defense.

As you can see, the offensive players are covered.

I'll try a few more variations.

thanks
David






Attachment (1)
Post #: 52
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 4:28:02 AM   
David Winter

 

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline 		Okay.. I have found one situation where you can find a TE uncovered.

The offensive play is the same one as previously shown. 2WR/2TE/1B

The defense has been changed to;

CB1 = either SPD1
CB2 = either SPD2
OL1 = either SPD3
OL2 = either SPD4
IL1 = backfield SPD1

As you can see, two linebackers end up on the HB and they leave the TE1 uncovered. So yes I think Yngvai may be onto something here. If you set up the defensive setting in such a way, it could leave someone uncovered.

As yet I've not done enough investigation to figure out what the problem could be. If a fix is determined to be needed, I'll have it for version 2.2. In the mean time, the suggested work around is to ensure that not all your defensive players are set to cover either.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by David Winter -- 1/24/2008 4:52:20 AM >

(in reply to David Winter)
Post #: 53
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 4:50:22 AM   
David Winter

 

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline 		So some further testing results.

In the case above, I'm not sure there is a 'bug' per se there. After stepping through the code and going over the logic again, what's happening is that one defender is being told to explicity look for only back field players, so he has no choice but to line up on a player that might already be covered.

if I change the defensive logic of the above play to this;
CB1 = either SPD1
CB2 = either SPD2
OL1 = either SPD3
OL2 = either SPD4
IL1 = either SPD5

Then all the receivers are covered again because IL1 is allowed to line up on TE1.

So again, the game is doing what it's been told to do, but so far, the only way I've been able to get a receiver left uncovered is if I force double coverage onto a defender.

thanks
David





(in reply to David Winter)
Post #: 54
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 4:53:07 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline 		Guys, I'll clean up this thread when we get this figured out.

I have tried many defensive plays against many offensive plays, and so has David, and we have yet to have this happen.  I have not looked at the MLF league file for clues, but I may have to go there to narrow this down.  There is something that is causing this, and it would be nice to find out why.

Do any of these defensive plays have Line Up On logic, or are they straight Man plays?

Are any defenders double covering a player?


< Message edited by Marauders -- 1/24/2008 4:56:04 AM >

(in reply to Shaggyra)
Post #: 55
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 5:27:23 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		First, the problem still occurs when you have all 5 defenders going EITHER.

I did some extensive testing. I will do a series of posts since I can only embed one picture per post. This is what I found.

First, I made a basic 4-2-5 nickel defense (the same one I posted earlier). The 4 DL's are in PASS RUSH. The two safeties (SA1 and SA2) are also in PASS RUSH. CB1 is in M2M EITHER SPEED 1. CB2 is in M2M EITHER SPEED 2. DB1 is in M2M EITHER SPEED 3. OL1 is in M2M EITHER SPEED 4. IL1 is in M2M EITHER SPEED 5. All men are set to UNDER coverage.

Here's what it looks like:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 56
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 5:29:54 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		OK, then I designed a very basic 3-back/2 WR/no TE offense. The OL's are in pass block, the QB does a basic drop back and read. Both R1 and R2, as well as FB1 and 3B1 look for pass right away and do their pass routes. The QB checks off in the order FB1/3B1/R1/R2. Here's a picture:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 57
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 5:33:02 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		OK, then I tested the above plays using San Francisco in the U.S. Max Football League that comes with the game. Everything worked like it's supposed to. Here is a screen shot. You can see that all the backs are covered and have a defender lined up over him.

The speeds of the eligible receivers in this case are:

HB1 87
FB1 83
3B1 83
R1 88
R2 85






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 58
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 5:37:33 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		I did the above test with Milwaukee in the same league. Again, everything was fine (no screen shot shown). The speeds of the eligible receivers were:

HB1 82
FB1 81
3B1 82
R1 85
R2 89


I then switched to the NCFL, Gary's league. I did the same tests with Las Vegas. Again, everything was fine. The speeds of the eligible receivers were:

HB1 87
FB1 83
3B1 77
R1 89
R2 89

I then ran the same tests with Birmingham. Suddenly, the problem happened. Thus, the problem is NOT isolated to the MLF. Here are the speeds:

HB1 90
FB1 85
3B1 72
R1 88
R2 88

Attached is a screen shot. Remember, this is the exact same offensive and defensive plays. As you can see, now the 3B1 is no longer covered. Instead, the defender is lined up over the QB. If you run the play, the defender just stands there as if he doesn't have any defensive logic assigned to him.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 59
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage - 1/24/2008 5:40:19 AM   
Yngvai


Posts: 82
Joined: 1/5/2008
Status: offline 		OK, then I switched over to the MLF. I first used Toronto as the team. The speeds are:

HB1 93
FB1 84
3B1 77
R1 98
R2 98

The same problem occurred. The 3B1 is uncovered. Attached is a screenshot.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Yngvai)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> Maximum-Football 2.0 >> Play Development System (PDS) >> RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage Page: <<   < prev  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

2.203