Put More of Your Brain In The Game?

[pairunoyd]

I know most people arent gonna like this, but I think its a good idea and will reward the strategists a bit more.

I know that plays are designed to counter other plays and are an attempt to allow your team to come out on top. However, players don't typically just robotically follow play design. They may appear to but they also tend to have expectations. They might cover their man or maintain their position, but they also tend to key in on the things they expect.
If someone keeps having success on offense running around the right end and you believe theyre doing it again the following play, then not only do you call a play to counter or beat it, but the player themselves should learn what to expect. I'm not saying the players should learn independent of the user, though thats a DEFINITE possibility, Im saying the gamer should be able to tell them to key in on it, as well as adhere to the called play.

The benefit for guessing right is an attribute boost. For guessing wrong its an attribute reduction. You should also decide how much you want players to key in. This would NOT replace play calling but would simply improve angles and other various facilitators if the actions are guessed. But also, heres a key, the offense could fake running that way or fake passing that way or to that player so that not only does the defense take an attribute hit because they guessed wrong but also because they might bite a bit more.

Obviously, developers need to continue working on balancing the game and making play-calling the biggest part of ones strategy, but I think this extra bit of REAL WORLD input would smooth rough edges as well as add another dimension.

[Ro_Diggity]

I see what your saying. How much of a boost should they get? Hopefully not a "Tecmo bowl" boost where they blow up the play, but really how much of a boost really plays a factor. 1 point? please, it wouldn't matter. maybe 5 or 10, depending on the player. like a high rated player get a higher boost and lower rated player get a slight boost.That way, **** Butkus will be even meaner and Blake Brooking will get a little more fired up to stop the play.

[ElGreazy78]

I like the idea as well, but the implementation would be tricky. And as Ro_Diggity touched upon, it sounds like it would bring back memories of the Tecmo Bowl "blow up" plays.

[Njake.]

America is becoming the stupidest nation in the world. They couldn't possibly make a game where kids and adults had to use their noggins more than they already do with this game.

[pairunoyd]

yea, theres all sorts of ways it could go. no doubt.

i just feel like you need to have more say so when youre sitting there watching a guy do the same thing over and over. of course the top priority is calling good plays, making good tackles, covering well, etc., but once the play starts I think itd be good if you could impart a bit of influence to your ai teammates.

i would tend to think that you should choose the key level and maybe that level would be described as soft, medium, hard. It might be an attribute boost (those that make sense) of +3/-3, +6/-6, +9/-9. But youd also suffer from over aggression if they fake that play or area you suspect. It'd be hard for them to time that, so i might not occur often. It could be a choice thats available while selecting your play and it could be available during pre-snap assignments.

I just cant help but think there should be at least a slight benefit for your team if YOU know where the play is going. I hate any level of helplessness. :)

[Bl00d h0und Gang]

I just cant help but think there should be at least a slight benefit for your team if YOU know where the play is going. I hate any level of helplessness. :)

Yes there is a benefit to knowing where the play is going: You know exactly what type of defense to call. That is assuming you know how defensive fronts, formations work. And that you also know how to utilize all the pre- snap adjustments.

I would hate for 2K9 to depend so much on pre- snap defense. The difference between a bad and good defensive user should always be based on your stick skill. Meaning your ability to control defenders after the snap. And not so much your ability to call plays.

Stick skill in All Pro 2k8 is not so much about positioning your player with left stick controls. In some instances you're better off not touching the left stick. Here is an exapmle

You sense the QB will throw a corner route to his TE. A great way to knock the pass down or even intercept the ball is to let go of the left stick. Allowing the cpu to run with thr route. Here is what you would do pre- snap: Call for outside coverage adjustment (right bumper + right stick- right) post snap: Allow your cpu defender to run with the TE. CHARGE (hold A) your defender. Then time your move to stop the pass... If the QB throws a bullet pass then press the right
bumper immediately. If it is a lob pass then wait a second then press right bumper.

[Darkheath]

I would hate for 2K9 to depend so much on pre- snap defense. The difference between a bad and good defensive user should always be based on your stick skill. Meaning your ability to control defenders after the snap. And not so much your ability to call plays.

I totally disagree with this in a BIG way, BHG. I would much rather 2K football remain a thinking man's game rather than a "twitchy fingers" game. (ie: Madden)

That's one reason I love the momentum so much in this game. As other players have stated, it keeps them from covering the ENTIRE field with one great player (ie: stick skill)

[Valdarez]

America is becoming the stupidest nation in the world. They couldn't possibly make a game where kids and adults had to use their noggins more than they already do with this game.Sure. It's called 'chess'.

[Darkheath]

America is becoming the stupidest nation in the world.

Actually you forgot the adverb "QUICKLY" in your sentence. ;)

[Njake.]

Actually you forgot the adverb "QUICKLY" in your sentence. ;)


I considered using quickly, but decided otherwise. A comment on America's stupidity should be as dumbed up as it can be.

[pairunoyd]

If in the real world a football team is defending the same type play over and over, it should have some sort of conditioning response. They shouldnt be like a blank slate each every play, just like its the first down of the first quarter. If they SHOULD have a learning response, should it be their learning or your learning or a combination of both? I'd tend to think it'd be a better reflection upon the gamers' abilities if the learning was his.

When a play is called, real world players dont simply think the technical aspects of the called play, they remember what went down last time and whats been going down since the first play. They should remember if OJ has been averaging 5 yds a carry around the right end and is typically doing so every 2nd and 3rd down. Just cause 'they' know this doesnt mean they should suddenly become football gods and be able to stop it. It should just mean they're more eager to try and stop it and put themselves into better position to stop it.

I definitely wouldn't want it to highjack other aspects of the game, such as stick skills, but I do believe it has a place. Plus, like I said earlier, not only will it have a negative effect on attributes, but itll have a practical effect if the offensive is smart enough to fake the suspected play. This idea can be problematic, no doubt. What if the guy does call the sweep right, but he cuts back left? Maybe the attribute boost would allow them to key in and help them try to pursue his cutback better? I just think that the brains on the field should be slighly influenced by the brains with the controller.

Just a VERY abstract thought on something that's EXTREMELY hard to assign ACCURATE values...

If you only considered 3 factors, play-calling, stick skills and keying, and decided to apply a value to each for its contribution to outcome, I'd guess the following might be fairly balanced (MIGHT be!):
Defense Only (Offense favors stick or controller input skills much more)
Play-Calling 52%
Controller Skills 33%
Keying 15%

[Valdarez]

That's an excellent idea! Give the defense a huge boost when playing a play for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 20th time (as the case may be). This would penalize the guys that call the same plays over, and over, and over again.

[acoosticant]

What you have said here is really my only recommendation for 2k9. I have been lobbying for something like this since pre-2k5. I don't necessarily think it should make a play harder to run each time you run it, but I do think if the defensive player can guess what the offensive player is calling, there should be some form of boost. There is nothing more frustrating in this game to KNOW what a player is running (usually in the case of deep outs), pick a D that should stop it, and then watch your players make stupid moves all over the field. Makes me want to scream sometimes. :)

I don't like the boosting based on repetition idea because it doesn't make the defensive player think. The computer is doing all the adjusting and thinking for him. I would like it better if the person actually had to designate it somehow.

[Valdarez]

I don't like the boosting based on repetition idea because it doesn't make the defensive player think. The computer is doing all the adjusting and thinking for him. I would like it better if the person actually had to designate it somehow.No, it forces the offensive player to think, and to use more than 5 to 10 plays a game. There's nothing worse than attempting to stop the same play, over, and over, and over again. In real football, there's no way an offensive coach would call the same play 5 times in a row (only switching sides) like a lot of players do in APF 2k8. The defense would pick up on it, and stop it. While the implementation might be different, the effect is the same, an offense will be penalized for calling the same play over and over again, which would make the game more realistic and more dynamic.

[AlexJones27]

Calling the same play over and over is stupid. I myself find that I have tendencies that I'm trying to break. Let's say I'm down by 14 in the 3rd. I always use a certain variance of a play in different formations becuase it worked for a long time. I am trying to stop my urge to call the play and use my brain. It's tough. It's habbit. There are other examples. My first play is always the same too. Why? I bet 95 percent of us use the same plays without realizing it. I'm speaking more of certain situations rather than running the same play over and over understood. But have you ever noticed in that situation whatever it is you too run the same plays?? I am challenging myself to think outside the box.

[Valdarez]

Calling the same play over and over is stupid. I myself find that I have tendencies that I'm trying to break. Let's say I'm down by 14 in the 3rd. I always use a certain variance of a play in different formations becuase it worked for a long time. I am trying to stop my urge to call the play and use my brain. It's tough. It's habbit. There are other examples. My first play is always the same too. Why? I bet 95 percent of us use the same plays without realizing it. I'm speaking more of certain situations rather than running the same play over and over understood. But have you ever noticed in that situation whatever it is you too run the same plays?? I am challenging myself to think outside the box.I'm right there with you. I think it would be cool if there was a little bar at the bottom of each play that showed how much the defense had picked up on the play. So if you never have run the play, it's empty. You run it once, it's now 33% full, twice, it's 66% full, three times 100% full which means it will be nigh impossible to pull off. Each quarter would reduce the defense effectiveness bonus by 1/3rd so if you ran it in the 1st quarter, you could run it again safely in the 2nd quarter. This would give the players the knowledge they need to run plays safely, and penalize the players that just run the same plays over and over again. This would make the games more realistic, dynamic, and fun. :)

[pairunoyd]

Here's some other, related ideas. It's probably too much, but it's somewhat along the same lines and has to do with risk-reward strategy.

I play a ton of NHL 2K8 and you can adjust team roughness. I think it'd be cool if under team strategy you could tweak your team's roughness in regards to penalties. Turning it up would increase your players' tendency to cheat to try and get an advantage. The higher you turn it up and the longer you keep it up, the greater your chance for penalties. Of course, you could also turn it down.

In NHL 2K8 you can adjust your teams attitude: Conserve, Balance, Attack. It'd be cool if you could tweak your team's effort. If you've got a cushiony lead, you could hold back just a bit and have reserves if neccesary. If you're really needing a certain drive to payoff you could crank it up. For this to work, fatigue would need to be a significant factor.

[Get Crazy]

I totally disagree with this in a BIG way, BHG. I would much rather 2K football remain a thinking man's game rather than a "twitchy fingers" game. (ie: Madden)

That's one reason I love the momentum so much in this game. As other players have stated, it keeps them from covering the ENTIRE field with one great player (ie: stick skill)


Is he serious?

[tyrell2110]

The defense does learn
In one season game I played I had 169 yards rushing to the right side in the first quarter, the defense learned that I always ran there and consecutively shut me down on that side

[NikePowered]

In 2k5 you could call out defensive awareness to either the pass or run at the snap of the ball with the right stick. They should put this back into the game but with alot of options.

[acoosticant]

No, it forces the offensive player to think, and to use more than 5 to 10 plays a game. There's nothing worse than attempting to stop the same play, over, and over, and over again. In real football, there's no way an offensive coach would call the same play 5 times in a row (only switching sides) like a lot of players do in APF 2k8. The defense would pick up on it, and stop it. While the implementation might be different, the effect is the same, an offense will be penalized for calling the same play over and over again, which would make the game more realistic and more dynamic.

I understand what you are saying but to me that makes it too easy on the defense. If a guy is truly running the same play over and over, the defense should have no problem if given the option to center in on a particular route or routes. Because while people will call the same offensive play many times, guys do it even worse on defense. I have a problem with someone being able to sit in the same defense the entire game and all of the sudden be able to stop a play just because someone runs it more than once or twice on a drive.

The fact is that in real football certain routes work well against certain coverages. Let me give you an example. Slants work extremely well against man coverage and the game does a good job at relating that. Now if a guy sits in man coverage the entire game with no adjustments, there is no reason a slant should ever stop being effective, no matter how many times it is run. However, if the defense were given an option to, "play man but favor slant" on a particular down when the defense was anticipating it, then the slant would be shut down. If you did this enough, especially with INTs, the offense is going to adjust their strategy or lose. But like I said above, if the defense continues to play man coverage with no adjustments, there is no reason the slant should ever stop working.

They attempt to fix this with the outside/inside coverage audible but the problem is that it is all or nothing with this audible. You may play inside to stop a slant but you are leaving an out route completely undefended on a different receiver. They should make it where you can designate individual d-backs to outside/inside instead of the entire secondary.

[Tbonious Prime]

They should make it where you can designate individual d-backs to outside/inside instead of the entire secondary.


that would be great if they could do it right, madden tried it back with madden 06, but it didnt really work that well, but if u can just move certain players, man, that would be nice

[Valdarez]

I understand what you are saying but to me that makes it too easy on the defense. If a guy is truly running the same play over and over, the defense should have no problem if given the option to center in on a particular route or routes. Because while people will call the same offensive play many times, guys do it even worse on defense. I have a problem with someone being able to sit in the same defense the entire game and all of the sudden be able to stop a play just because someone runs it more than once or twice on a drive.

The fact is that in real football certain routes work well against certain coverages. Let me give you an example. Slants work extremely well against man coverage and the game does a good job at relating that. Now if a guy sits in man coverage the entire game with no adjustments, there is no reason a slant should ever stop being effective, no matter how many times it is run. However, if the defense were given an option to, "play man but favor slant" on a particular down when the defense was anticipating it, then the slant would be shut down. If you did this enough, especially with INTs, the offense is going to adjust their strategy or lose. But like I said above, if the defense continues to play man coverage with no adjustments, there is no reason the slant should ever stop working.

They attempt to fix this with the outside/inside coverage audible but the problem is that it is all or nothing with this audible. You may play inside to stop a slant but you are leaving an out route completely undefended on a different receiver. They should make it where you can designate individual d-backs to outside/inside instead of the entire secondary.I don't see how that would make the defense too easy. You still have to call plays and stop the offense. If anything it makes the offense more difficult which is what this game needs. The offense in this game is just way too easy. There's a difference between routes and plays. You can have the same route run and it be on a different play. The route would still be effective, as long as it came from another formation/set.

I agree about the DB's being able to put them inside or outside individually. I see a lot of guys move them manually to try to do that, and it helps.

Still... offensive players that call the same plays over, and over, and over again, should be penalized for doing so. They would be penalized in a real football game because the defense would hone in on what they were doing.

Maybe you not only put an effectiveness on the offensive players plays, you put a play effectiveness on the defensive players plays as well. So when he makes a play call, he can see how effective it will be (kind of a guide). It would only work after the guy had made his play call, and you would have to cycle quickly to find it. This would reward guys that took the time to find the appropriate play call (if it exists) and penalize the guys that just sit in man cover play after play (which I don't know why you would do...).

[ElGreazy78]

I think what you guys are talking about here is basically what the developers go through before they implement a new feature. It goes to show that there are a lot of factors to take into account even before the hard task of programming comes about.

[acoosticant]

Here is the way I would like to see it work and I think it compromises what we both are saying (though it will never happen):

Offense picks their play and it delivers the package to the screen for the defense.

At this time the defense has 2 options:
1) Continue to select defensive play just like it is done now.

2) Steal opponents play. In this option the defense is actually delivered a copy of all the formations within a particular package the offense has in his play book. When you select a formation and begin cycling through the individual plays, you see that each play has a translucent overlay with the probability the offense has called that play based on his play calling thus far in the game. If the defense effectively chooses their opponent's play, it is lock down for the offense that time out. If defense guesses wrong, the outcome of the play basically depends on what play you picked to cover and how that relates to the play actually run.

[Valdarez]

Here is the way I would like to see it work and I think it compromises what we both are saying (though it will never happen):

Offense picks their play and it delivers the package to the screen for the defense.

At this time the defense has 2 options:
1) Continue to select defensive play just like it is done now.

2) Steal opponents play. In this option the defense is actually delivered a copy of all the formations within a particular package the offense has in his play book. When you select a formation and begin cycling through the individual plays, you see that each play has a translucent overlay with the probability the offense has called that play based on his play calling thus far in the game. If the defense effectively chooses their opponent's play, it is lock down for the offense that time out. If defense guesses wrong, the outcome of the play basically depends on what play you picked to cover and how that relates to the play actually run.In practice mode, I can't stand how it overlays the offensive and defensive players. It's just ugly and hard to make anything out clearly. Now, take that and shrink it to about 1/16th the size. I don't think you will be able to make anything out in a meaningful manner. For me at least, it would just end up hurting my eyes. :eek:

Why would you not want to limit the number of plays that an offense can call? I have several money plays that I like to call, but I can run multiple formations and wouldn't mind being limited. You can run the same routes via other formations, so it's not like you are limiting the routes. There are the exact same plays available via multiple formations. This idea wouldn't make defense any easier unless the offense is calling the same play over, and over, and over again. I think we can both agree that the Defense in the game needs a little bit of help and that the game in general is titled towards the offensive play. I don't see how providing a little bit of help to the defensive player by prodding the offensive player to utilize more plays is a bad thing. I would much rather play a guy that uses 20 plays than some guy that has 5 plays that he runs all game long.

[Tbonious Prime]

i think that the more complex they make this game, the less and less people that are going to pick it up, now i know that we feel that we dont want the maddenites to play this game, and most of them dont because they feel its too hard, which i think is straight BS cuz its not that hard, but the bottom line is that this game needs more people that play it, i like playing accousticant, and boffa, only play valdarez once, but i also dont want to have a sweaty shirt by the end of the day from playing these guys, i want a wide range of people to play against, and i think that some of the stuff posted in this thread would just keep more and more people away

and one more thing, no matter what they do to this game, the people that are good at this game are still going to be good at this game, just about all the good players play well on both sides of the ball already, i dont think that a suped up defense will change anything, unless you guys just want to blow everyone out all the time because you feel you have superior play calling

[acoosticant]

Why would you not want to limit the number of plays that an offense can call?

Because I feel like my opponent should have to actually do something to make me change up my game plan instead of just saying..."I'll let him have that play a couple of times because sooner or later the AI won't let him run it anymore." I want him to actually have to think, "what adjustments do I need to make to stop that play?" And at that point, all the adjustments his little heart could desire should be made available to him.

[Reed#20]

that would be great if they could do it right, madden tried it back with madden 06, but it didnt really work that well, but if u can just move certain players, man, that would be nice

The thing is they had it in 2k5 where you could do it as a group or individually move the CB on each side. :(

[Tbonious Prime]

The thing is they had it in 2k5 where you could do it as a group or individually move the CB on each side. :(


i dont remember being able to do it on 2k5, atleast not on PS2, not saying it wasnt there, but i dont remember seeing it

[madsqgrdn]

i think that the more complex they make this game, the less and less people that are going to pick it up, now i know that we feel that we dont want the maddenites to play this game, and most of them dont because they feel its too hard, which i think is straight BS cuz its not that hard, but the bottom line is that this game needs more people that play it, i like playing accousticant, and boffa, only play valdarez once, but i also dont want to have a sweaty shirt by the end of the day from playing these guys, i want a wide range of people to play against, and i think that some of the stuff posted in this thread would just keep more and more people away

and one more thing, no matter what they do to this game, the people that are good at this game are still going to be good at this game, just about all the good players play well on both sides of the ball already, i dont think that a suped up defense will change anything, unless you guys just want to blow everyone out all the time because you feel you have superior play calling


ahh yes indeed .....true words....They have to make this game more accesible not more complex....The casual gamer has to get involved or 2k football will be dead forever. Why would you buy this game as a casual gamer when the only real way to play is online and the only people to play with have hundreds of games played. ..Yes occasionally theres a person in the lobbies under 100 games played...but those are people who created new profiles :) ...I hope they can recover from all the dissapointed casual gamers that bought the game this year before finding out that its really an online game.

I love this game but if it doesnt bring in some of the Maddenites its gonna die plain and simple. ..Maybe ...some sort of Arcade mode of play ..get the madden heads used to the game and then eventually theyll move on to the All Pro or Legend modes...

They need to get college kids playing this game in thier dormrooms next year....The only thing I think would help that is get more of the recently retired legends ..the legends the college kids grew up watching...or the maddenites love to play as...Rich Gannon, Tim Brown those kinds of guys.

[Valdarez]

Because I feel like my opponent should have to actually do something to make me change up my game plan instead of just saying..."I'll let him have that play a couple of times because sooner or later the AI won't let him run it anymore." I want him to actually have to think, "what adjustments do I need to make to stop that play?" And at that point, all the adjustments his little heart could desire should be made available to him.So the defensive player should have to think, but not the offensive one? I still think the D needs all the help it can get in this game and anything they can do to help it, without ruining the offense is a good thing.

[Valdarez]

You can make a game more complex and still keep it simple as oxymoronic as that may sound. Football games in general have grown more and more complex, and with the caveat of this year, they have only increased in sales year over year.

[acoosticant]

So the defensive player should have to think, but not the offensive one?

In respect to the defense being responsible for reacting to the offense and not the other way around, yes. But in that regard, I think the defense should have ever adjustable element anyone could fathom at their disposal. Defense is too rigid on this game the way it is. They need to allow for more flexibility. Hell, I'd be happy with simple custom play creation option.

[Valdarez]

In respect to the defense being responsible for reacting to the offense and not the other way around, yes. But in that regard, I think the defense should have ever adjustable element anyone could fathom at their disposal. Defense is too rigid on this game the way it is. They need to allow for more flexibility. Hell, I'd be happy with simple custom play creation option.But there is no such thing as a perfect defensive game. I mean, on defense you are doing nothing but making guesses. At best they are based on speculation, and at worst they are just random guesses with your play calling. Sure, you can adjust at the line with your 5 audibles and man up, hot zone, or rush the QB, but still, you're guessing at what the player is going to run. If an offensive player has 5 money plays that they run all game long, and you're doing nothing but trying to guess what they are, and the defense never gets better against those plays, then that's going to be an extremely frustrating and repetitive game. In real life the players would pick up on signals, movement, and the like and be prepared for the same play after it's been run once, and especially if it's been run two, three, or four times, regardless of the defensive play call.

[pairunoyd]

Some thinking outside the box. Not neccesarily a good idea but something to get the ball rolling...

I also think that tackle breaks should all be right stick. I think that you should be able to decide how much you want to put into the tackle break attempt, but the more you put into it the longer your animation, making you more vulnerable to close defenders.

The movement of the right stick could be based on the defender's location, but i think itd be best if the point of reference remained fixed. This would mean the stick would be like a clock. If you engaged a defender, especially in the open field, w/ other defenders a ways off, you might want to push the stick straight up to the 12 o'clock position. This would be a max break attempt, but would also be the longest animation. Timing would still be important, but much less important.

Just to give you a crude idea, I'll add some pretend numbers...

Let's say your timing is good. On a scale of 1-10, 1 is the worst timing but still makes a very small contribution to success and 10 is the best timing and makes a maximum contribution. Good would be a 7. Lets say timing is 50% and stick position is 50%, excluding the consideration of all other factors. A 12 oclock position would be a 10 out of 10. 7+10=17. 17/2=8.5. 8.5 out of 10 chance to break it. The 6 oclock position would be a 1, but if it succeeded itd be a very quick, basically untouched tackle break.

These numbers are just to give an idea of the concept and are probably WAY off.

You'd use the 3-9 oclock positions for inside, clogged runs and move toward 12 oclock the more isolated the defender is. Also, if youre wanting short yardage you could try more toward 12 oclock in close quarters, allowing you to possibly shirk a tackle enough to get your momentum forward before succumbing another. Also, if you get a guy that breaks thru the line waiting to pounce right after hand-off, youd get a fighting chance with an 10-11 or 1-2 oclock positioning and might still get out of the hole.

If you did base stick position on the defenders position itd make it hard for the computer to know which defender youre basing it on when youre close to 2 or more. There also might be a VERY slight turnover increase with greater tackle break attempts. Maybe 12 oclock vs 3 oclock would mean 1 more fumble per 50-100 carries???