Potential issue with M2M coverage

[Deft]

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.

[Deft]

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.

[Yngvai]

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!

[Yngvai]

Yeah, maybe the league import did something. That would explain why I noticed the problem in the MLF but not in the NFL.

[Yngvai]

ORIGINAL: Deft

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.

[Yngvai]

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?

[Deft]

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)

[garysorrell]

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

[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?

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

[Yngvai]

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.

[Shaggyra]

ORIGINAL: garysorrell

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

Yikes!!! Go easy on me please. [;)]

[David Winter]

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

[David Winter]

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.

[David Winter]

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
 
 

 
 

[Marauders]

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?

[Yngvai]

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:

[Yngvai]

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:

[Yngvai]

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

[Yngvai]

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.

[Yngvai]

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.