Next Version 2.2 patch update (May 14, 2008)

[Marauders]

4.On the same play Offense gets double pass stat credit in team stats. Alo passer and receiver also get double credt. Yeah I know this has been reported but is it fixed.

Im positive this has been fixed. Im not seeing it now.

Nope, not fixed yet, I still see it a good bit, although I have found switching of replays seems to eliminate the problem.

 
As Gary stated, this was fixed in a beta build.  David addressed this soon after it was reported.

[elmerlee]

David  Winter:
  As far as the running in place is concerned your answer was very encouraging.
  I hoped I was seeing right when the runner got past the line of scrimmage. Not that
  big of a deal if that is the case as good play design should help behind LOS event.
  
  Concerning the KO touchback, it usually works fine and I noticed only twice when what I mentioned occured.
  This was  on kicks that went out of the endzone (not everytime I don't think). As far as I could tell
   the kick may have stopped right on the endline (cack of the endzone).

   As I said the ball spotting is not a big deal. If I right programing the spot according to a real
   game  would surely be difficult. My thought was just that seeing a ball carrier knocked back or
   falling forward is very neat and would be nice if the game could account for that.

   While I have your ear David are you aware of the "first down on an offensive penalty." I think
    this only occurs when offense has called a play on first down.

Marauders:
    Once again you did not answer 80% of what I ask.

    Your reply to the "running in place" was not correct,and made little sense,as if differs with
    what David posted.

     As for the "double stats" I didn't ask if it was known. I asked if it was fixed.
     The same goes for the  kickoff error.

     And your reply to the FD on a TD is just incorrect. I believe this was decided earlier.

   

[Marauders]

elmerlee stated: Once again you did not answer 80% of what I ask.

I answer what I may and defer the other questions to David. In this case, I posted a quick answer to your questions, and I didn't dig through the build notes to see which issues were already corrected - partially because we are testing them still. When I post that issues are being addressed, they have usually been posted to a thread in the private forum and have been discussed or have been acted on. Please accept that I am not at liberty to post everything that is going on in the private forum, and it it is up to David if he wants to post in more detail.

Your reply to the "running in place" was not correct,and made little sense,as if differs with what David posted.

My "running in place" reply was correct, and it did differ from what David posted. They are different issues and are not mutually exclusive.

Your specific question was whether ball carriers look for an open hole, and my answer was that they do. If the blockers are all bunched, or there is no hole, the ball carrier will take an angle to an open area if he can. If he is trapped with defenders around him, he cannot always do that and will look like he is running in place.

The issue that David brought up is that the running back, or an player for that matter, will try to execute any command given to him. If the [MOVETO:] command runs a halfback up the back of the quarterback or linemen, he will run in place until the status is resolved.

This means that play design is important. One must test new plays in the PDS to make sure that the hole that the back is supposed to run through is actually a hole by the time he gets there. It also means that backs should be given movement commands that do not run through the quarterback dropping back for a pass.

Some community members may have noticed that the running back will nonger be given a free pass through the quarterback dropping back. Collision detection has been turned on when the quarterback is dropping back and some plays are affected because the running back, especially in a single back or I formation, has poorly designed commands. That is one reason that I am cleaning up some of the old playbooks.

There was debate as to whether the collision detection for the quarterback dropping back should be turned on for other players in the backfield. There is always a balance between realism and keeping things simple for game players. In this case realism was the greater value, because having running backs move through quarterbacks didn't look good. Play designers should know how to place their backs without using the [BLOCK: PASS] shortcut and no other movement. I have faith that this will not be an issue.

As for the "double stats" I didn't ask if it was known. I asked if it was fixed.

I have not been testing stats, so this isn't an area I wanted to go into depth with. As I stated above, if I tell you something is known or being addressed, it is being looked into and may already have been resolved. I generally answer questions with as much information as I either want to give or believe I am allowed to give considering I am under a NDA as part of the beta team.

The same goes for the kickoff error.

Again, I was making a quick post, and I answered as best I could recall. I do not always have the time to go into more detail.

And your reply to the FD on a TD is just incorrect. I believe this was decided earlier.

How was it just incorrect?

Section 1, (First Downs) of the NCAA rulebook states:

"Article 1. A first down shall be recorded whenever the yardsticks are ordered forward and/or when a touchdown is scored from scrimmage (rushing or passing) within a series of downs starting from 10 years or more from the goal line, or when a dead-ball foul results in an automatic first down."

I stated:

"A team should get credit for a first down on any score made from the ten yard line and out in both American pro and American college rules."

I don't see anything in my reply that is incorrect.

I'm not really sure what the purpose is trying to call out a moderator on this board. That is especially valid in my case, as I have defended your comments many times in the private forum, and your brusque writing style tends to leave you without many defenders.

I appreciate your continued feedback, and I will try to answer any questions you may have, but I am not your personal assistant. Please keep that in mind.

[Marauders]

As far as the running in place is concerned your answer was very encouraging. I hoped I was seeing right when the runner got past the line of scrimmage. Not that big of a deal if that is the case as good play design should help behind LOS event.

Do you know which playbook or play you were running? I could look into this more closely if I know which play it was.

Concerning the KO touchback, it usually works fine and I noticed only twice when what I mentioned occured. This was on kicks that went out of the endzone (not everytime I don't think). As far as I could tell the kick may have stopped right on the endline (cack of the endzone).

Thank you for the follow up information. This could be helpful.

As I said the ball spotting is not a big deal. If I right programing the spot according to a real game would surely be difficult. My thought was just that seeing a ball carrier knocked back or falling forward is very neat and would be nice if the game could account for that.

I agree, it would be nice to have the ball spotted forward if the player falls forward. From past similar discussions, I recall that the location of the ball in the 3D world is where the ball is spotted, but I am not sure if this is prior to the tackle animation being played or not.

[elmerlee]

I will drop this after posting one more thing. It is rather well established that a wrong answer is much worse than none at all.Even in basic testing procedures this is quite often applied.

I contend that your wrong answers are misleading. In the FD case you continue to argue your point and state a rule in the NCAA rulebook.Below is my illustration.

"Offense scores a TD on a 45 yard pass. They DO NOT get credit for a FD (NFL PRO GAME)in the team stats.This item has been well documented for months but not fixed."

First I mention the game was an NFL game not NCAA. Second I stated the score came on a 45 yard pass. I believe that is outside the 10 yard line. Two items you failed to notice. So this makes me wonder if you really absorb the posts on this board or are simply are in a hurry to provide some type answer.

Your efforts on the board are appreciated but I think correct and pertinent answers would be best. Nobody wants to be misled.

[Mykal]

Jeepers man

Were all in the same boat, we have the same issues, cos were all playing the same game
but Cut Marauders some slack brother

There's a line between constructive critism and jumping on someone
I think were getting real close to that line here

We all get your point by now (and even agree with most of it)

Lets be kewl elmerlee and all stay buddies..............

Later brother, Mykal

[garysorrell]

So this makes me wonder if you really absorb the posts on this board or are simply are in a hurry to provide some type answer.

This comment is garbage and uncalled for. Marauders has done a great job, not only on the public board but also on the testers board, of helping better this game and the experience of its users. He's an unpaid moderator and test team leader. He runs block for David so David can work on the game. God forgive him if he misread, misunderstood, or as the genius Roger Clemens said, "Misremembered" something. I can vouch for the fact Marauders is online at all hours. Because I am also, and I see him there a lot. I think this sudden demand for perfection is a bit unrealistic.
However, on the subject of perfection, the following is bad grammar:

or are simply are in a hurry

[therhino]

Emerlee that is enough. You called David out a couple of months ago and it didn't help you then and it won't now. Marauders is trying to help, but give him a chance. You can't expect David to answer your questions and work on Maximum Football at the same time. As for 2.5 David I think you should charge full price. You have given so much of your time to us and I have no problem paying $40. Since I have been here I have gotten 2 updates for free and a HUGE thanks for that David.
Thanks,
TheRhino

[Marauders]

elmerlee stated: It is rather well established that a wrong answer is much worse than none at all. Even in basic testing procedures this is quite often applied.

Then simply stop giving wrong answers.

I contend that your wrong answers are misleading.

Please tell me which answers you believe to be wrong or misleading in the replies to your post?

The only item I was unaware of was that any proposed trade feature will need a few changes to the database, but that information wasn't given to the beta team, so it was unknown to anyone but David. That is why I prefaced my reply to JD with not that I know of.

In the FD case you continue to argue your point and state a rule in the NCAA rulebook.I contend that your wrong answers are misleading. In the FD case you continue to argue your point and state a rule in the NCAA rulebook. Below is my illustration.

Actually, I was supporting your point, but you want to take issue with that for some reason.

"Offense scores a TD on a 45 yard pass. They DO NOT get credit for a FD (NFL PRO GAME)in the team stats.This item has been well documented for months but not fixed."

Got it, the team didn't get credit for the first down.

First I mention the game was an NFL game not NCAA.

Got it, the NFL game.

Side Note: there is no NFL in Maximum Football, that is under an exclusive contract with EA Sports, but I got the point.

The rule is the same in the NCAA (an EA Sports licence as well) and NFL - unless I have been misled by the rulebooks.

Second I stated the score came on a 45 yard pass. I believe that is outside the 10 yard line.

Yes, the 45 yard line is outside the 10 yard line. Got it, 35 yards outside the 10 yard line.

Two items you failed to notice.

I noticed them, and I responded in support of your premise.

Perhaps you did not notice that I posted in agreement with your post on that point. You didn't even notice that after I told you in no uncertain terms a few posts later, and then I posted the NCAA rule as a follow up. Would you rather I hadn't agreed with you?

So this makes me wonder if you really absorb the posts on this board or are simply are in a hurry to provide some type answer.

The irony.

Do I need to explain that reply further?

Your efforts on the board are appreciated but I think correct and pertinent answers would be best. Nobody wants to be misled.

I am certain no one wants to be misled, but tell me how you were misled in any way. Perhaps if you actually had taken the time to read the replies you would have understood their meaning. It isn't that you were misled; it is that you misread.

Again, I will say that I appreciate your feedback. I have stated so in public and in PM's, but your replies here are combative and brusque for no good reason that I can see other than the answers were not exactly what you wanted. Excuse me for that, as I don't always have time to look up all of the information in one go, and I'd rather not post incorrect or misleading information in haste. I am not immune from doing so, but I have not in this topic.

[therhino]

Thanks Marauders that clears a couple of more points up. I don't see you misleading anyone at all, but thats just me. This post proves Gary Sorrells point Marauders is up at any time of the night. Thanks Marauders you and David have helped me with problems early and late and it so cool not having to wait days of weeks for a reply.
TheRhino