Potential issue with M2M coverage
Moderator: David Winter
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
Sorry, man....having a bad day anyway....
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
Here is a similar formation but with only 1TE, 3 WR, 1 RB and a similar defense.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
Is the coverage on the play set prior to a Move To: command or after?
-
sthchaseer
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:54 pm
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
Nope, there are no move to commands at all.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
--for example, an offense made with an earlier PDS vs a defense made with the current PDS.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.
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?
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
-
David Winter
- Posts: 5158
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:51 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Contact:
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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
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
"They're not dolls. They're action figures. Valuable Action figures!"
RE: Potential issue with M2M coverage
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.
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.