Warrior General Games

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
To recap thoughts... In summary form.

1.) Pre Snap... Assign Threat Values to the defenders...
** Perhaps Higher Vision by HB helps with Pre-snap Threat Values being assigned accurately??
** Lower Vision perhaps makes a higher threat look lower in value? Thus doesn't avoid him as much??
** Some cool modifiers could be played with here.
2.) Simple Vector Math... Ball carrier avoids highest threats.
3.) Threat intersects the ball carrier... The Vision check is required by the HB.
4.) Tackle avoidance versus Tackle Roll is carried out.
..a.) higher Vision will help with the Tackle avoidance sub rolls - or 'unlocks' multiple sub rolls
5.) Tackle or Missed Tackle.
..a.) If tackle is made - play is over.
..b.) If tackle is missed, repeat steps 2 to 4 until:
....i.) score,
... ii.) ball carrier runs out of bounds,
... iii.) change of possesion (fumble),
... iv.) or tackle is made.



Uch... think this will actually be implemented any time soon, if at all? I'm building an elusive HB and hadn't planned on taking Vision past 48 tbh.

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
To recap thoughts... In summary form.

1.) Pre Snap... Assign Threat Values to the defenders...
** Perhaps Higher Vision by HB helps with Pre-snap Threat Values being assigned accurately??
** Lower Vision perhaps makes a higher threat look lower in value? Thus doesn't avoid him as much??
** Some cool modifiers could be played with here.
2.) Simple Vector Math... Ball carrier avoids highest threats.
3.) Threat intersects the ball carrier... The Vision check is required by the HB.
4.) Tackle avoidance versus Tackle Roll is carried out.
..a.) higher Vision will help with the Tackle avoidance sub rolls - or 'unlocks' multiple sub rolls
5.) Tackle or Missed Tackle.
..a.) If tackle is made - play is over.
..b.) If tackle is missed, repeat steps 2 to 4 until:
....i.) score,
... ii.) ball carrier runs out of bounds,
... iii.) change of possesion (fumble),
... iv.) or tackle is made.



I think there are potential problems with threat assessment and avoiding highest threats.

If LB1 has a 99% chance of tackling you, but LB2 has a 95% chance of tackling you, will you avoid LB1 and head towards LB2 even though LB2 is closer?

It's those sort of details that make or break these trees....

Originally posted by Air18
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt

To recap thoughts... In summary form.

1.) Pre Snap... Assign Threat Values to the defenders...
** Perhaps Higher Vision by HB helps with Pre-snap Threat Values being assigned accurately??
** Lower Vision perhaps makes a higher threat look lower in value? Thus doesn't avoid him as much??
** Some cool modifiers could be played with here.
2.) Simple Vector Math... Ball carrier avoids highest threats.
3.) Threat intersects the ball carrier... The Vision check is required by the HB.
4.) Tackle avoidance versus Tackle Roll is carried out.
..a.) higher Vision will help with the Tackle avoidance sub rolls - or 'unlocks' multiple sub rolls
5.) Tackle or Missed Tackle.
..a.) If tackle is made - play is over.
..b.) If tackle is missed, repeat steps 2 to 4 until:
....i.) score,
... ii.) ball carrier runs out of bounds,
... iii.) change of possesion (fumble),
... iv.) or tackle is made.



Uch... think this will actually be implemented any time soon, if at all? I'm building an elusive HB and hadn't planned on taking Vision past 48 tbh.

This is all theories trying to hash it out. Really looking for someone like DB, Hazy, PP, etc... to take this to Bort and see if they can agree this is even worth trying. If so, then they can try it on the test server. There they could experiment with builds to ensure it works as intended and doesn't break the game.

But I think the tackle avoidance roll could work for both Elusive and Power Backs... Just the sub rolls would be taking into consideration different bonuses.

I am pretty spent... I need sleep. LOL

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
This is all theories trying to hash it out. Really looking for someone like DB, Hazy, PP, etc... to take this to Bort and see if they can agree this is even worth trying. If so, then they can try it on the test server. There they could experiment with builds to ensure it works as intended and doesn't break the game.

But I think the tackle avoidance roll could work for both Elusive and Power Backs... Just the sub rolls would be taking into consideration different bonuses.

I am pretty spent... I need sleep. LOL

Time flies when your whining about GLB, doesn't it?

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt

I am pretty spent... I need sleep. LOL

well, go to sleep fucker, big night tomorrow

Originally posted by Cadillac24 DTD
well, go to sleep fucker, big night tomorrow

Oh god...

I should just ask to be banned now.

We're friends tbh

Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt

To recap thoughts... In summary form.

1.) Pre Snap... Assign Threat Values to the defenders...
** Perhaps Higher Vision by HB helps with Pre-snap Threat Values being assigned accurately??
** Lower Vision perhaps makes a higher threat look lower in value? Thus doesn't avoid him as much??
** Some cool modifiers could be played with here.
2.) Simple Vector Math... Ball carrier avoids highest threats.
3.) Threat intersects the ball carrier... The Vision check is required by the HB.
4.) Tackle avoidance versus Tackle Roll is carried out.
..a.) higher Vision will help with the Tackle avoidance sub rolls - or 'unlocks' multiple sub rolls
5.) Tackle or Missed Tackle.
..a.) If tackle is made - play is over.
..b.) If tackle is missed, repeat steps 2 to 4 until:
....i.) score,
... ii.) ball carrier runs out of bounds,
... iii.) change of possesion (fumble),
... iv.) or tackle is made.



I think there are potential problems with threat assessment and avoiding highest threats.

If LB1 has a 99% chance of tackling you, but LB2 has a 95% chance of tackling you, will you avoid LB1 and head towards LB2 even though LB2 is closer?

It's those sort of details that make or break these trees....

Go back to Hagalaz's quote...

Originally posted by Hagalaz
If that's the issue, why not solve it with simple vectors? Assign "threat" values to each incoming defender and "importance" value to your goal, each of these is the length of a vector, add all 3 and the HB suddenly knows the instant best way considering all defenders at once. It doesn't consider blockers, but it's a pretty simple solution. It even considers backpeddling if the defender threat value goes beyond the "reward" or "importance" value of maintaining the same general direction.

The 'importance' value is a Vector we are leaving out... Your goal would be the end zone... Or possibly 1st down marker, then once that is obtained - it changes to the end zone?

Ducy?

Originally posted by Cadillac24 DTD
We're friends tbh

You damn Canadians!!! Hhahahah Happy New Year (eve) bro!

Yep, trust me it will be an happy night

Happy new year to you as well

Originally posted by Cadillac24 DTD
Yep, trust me it will be an happy night

Happy new year to you as well

DTD fo sho

oh yeah fo sho
not driving tomorrow lol

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
The 'importance' value is a Vector we are leaving out... Your goal would be the end zone... Or possibly 1st down marker, then once that is obtained - it changes to the end zone?

Ducy?

Oh IC alright, I think it is a bit more complicated than you are imagining due to the variety of situational reward values and their relative weights.

1st down, get in FG range, keep from losing yards, score a TD, gain the safest yards possible, get out of bounds to stop the clock....these all need to be determined in a sensible way, because your dot is going to do something stupid otherwise.

So the Defense will be able to dictate where the HB runs.....

Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt

The 'importance' value is a Vector we are leaving out... Your goal would be the end zone... Or possibly 1st down marker, then once that is obtained - it changes to the end zone?

Ducy?

Oh IC alright, I think it is a bit more complicated than you are imagining due to the variety of situational reward values and their relative weights.

1st down, get in FG range, keep from losing yards, score a TD, gain the safest yards possible, get out of bounds to stop the clock....these all need to be determined in a sensible way, because your dot is going to do something stupid otherwise.

Agreed.

Needs to be situational...

Play Direction, Down, Distance, Time on the Clock, Score - and even possibly the side line (end of half / game scenario trying to setup a FG). All those should help pre-determine your importance value vector.

If your HB's importance value vector is your ball carriers primary objective... Once that objective is met, say the first down marker is reached - then the importance value should be automatically recalculated on the next tic to go for the end zone - score.

So initial importance value vector may be to get to the first down marker... Then that is met... Now you have the end zone as your next importance value vector.

These vectors are being recalculated every tic - until a defenders tackle radius intersects the ball carriers path. This is when the tackle avoidance rolls would occur.