I’ve lost so many playoffs to y sail

elmango30 said:

I was being facetious lol, should I throw an edit in? 

It was a comment on the implication that a basic flood concept is cheating

Oh dang, no continue to troll him please lol

phatalerror said:

This is not being argued in principle, it’s being argued in practice. Madden AI < NFL player intelligence, and as a result, the separation that NFL receivers get on flood concepts is much tighter than what Madden users are tasked with throwing against, assuming that the correct defense is being called in the first place. If I call a defense that in principle is weak against flood concepts because I lose the numbers game, I deserve what I get. That’s a given.

No one that says I’m wrong about this topic is even trying to argue against the point I’m making. In what reality is having to take a stock play and make a dozen pre-snap adjustments quickly every single time I’m trying to counter one specific play a reasonable thing to expect when in real life, if a coach calls Y-sail three times in a row, the defenders already understand what they need to do because they just did it twice?

How about offensive users having to call more than one stock play, and not only having to layer on multiple match-AI-busting hot-route variants? It’s not a skill issue, nor a knowledge issue, when the offensive user is doing things that cause the defensive adjustments to fail to do what they’re supposed to do.

Is for sure a knowledge issue at this point and when run correctly a flood concept absolutely kills zone and gets plenty of separation in real life. That’s how you beat zone, make a defender have to be in 2 spots at once. As soon as he chooses he’s wrong. 

There is no stock zone that should cover Y-sail. That’s why it’s a good play. It should in theory beat every zone coverage. 

Vs cover 2 high low the outside cb

Vs cover 3 you high low the slot cb

Vs cover 4 match, even when matched correctly your TE has outside leverage on the safety that needs to match him. 

IRL, me and my DBs communicate the route combo we just saw between every play and how we want to cover it. 

In madden it’s your job to problem solve and come up with a better solution than stock coverage. But I’ve had plenty of luck running cover 3 hard flats, manning the TE with the safety, outside shade him. User the drag and bait the throw to the dig. That’s literally 2 adjustments. Another solution is setting your zone drops and double mable the strong side of the formation. 

Then it’s the offensive players job to figure out what you did, and find a counter to it. It’s a chess match, a never series of moves and countermoves. asking the cpu to do it for you because you can’t figure it out is bush league

TheNickSix said:

Is for sure a knowledge issue at this point and when run correctly a flood concept absolutely kills zone and gets plenty of separation in real life. That’s how you beat zone, make a defender have to be in 2 spots at once. As soon as he chooses he’s wrong. 

There is no stock zone that should cover Y-sail. That’s why it’s a good play. It should in theory beat every zone coverage. 

Vs cover 2 high low the outside cb

Vs cover 3 you high low the slot cb

Vs cover 4 match, even when matched correctly your TE has outside leverage on the safety that needs to match him. 

IRL, me and my DBs communicate the route combo we just saw between every play and how we want to cover it. 

In madden it’s your job to problem solve and come up with a better solution than stock coverage. But I’ve had plenty of luck running cover 3 hard flats, manning the TE with the safety, outside shade him. User the drag and bait the throw to the dig. That’s literally 2 adjustments. Another solution is setting your zone drops and double mable the strong side of the formation. 

Then it’s the offensive players job to figure out what you did, and find a counter to it. It’s a chess match, a never series of moves and countermoves. asking the cpu to do it for you because you can’t figure it out is bush league

Double-Mabling is exactly how I try to handle it, and it should work, right? Zone drops should make sense, no? But why should I be constrained by precise zone drops when no defender in the league plays that way. If the concept is Double Mable against Levels, why is my defensive back lurking where there is no one. Now I've adjusted my zone drops and my opponent can tell, because stock drops don't work, but now what I've done is stopping him. So now he goes No-Huddle and calls plays that target the gaps in coverage created by my Have-to-Explain-It-to-My-Defensive-Backs-Like-They're-Five zone drops. I have to force an incompletion or call a timeout to stop the clock. And once he gets inside the red zone, things can really go sideways with preset zone drops in that scenario.

As I've said -- repeatedly -- the interface is the problem. I know how to defend a concept like Levels, but in the end, my opponent actually is doing something besides one play repeatedly, and the zone coverages I am calling are to cover my backside for the times I guess wrong.

You keep framing everything like I'm insisting I should have a solves-everything-solution, and ignore entirely the context of my argument and the reason for my objections to the negative and occasionally crippling weaknesses in your "solution". I shouldn't have to put a laser pointer on the field for each one of my CPU-controlled defenders. I should be able to execute basic defensive concepts with a minimum of inputs without having literally everything in an appropriate coverage scheme being blown up by a couple hot routes and pre-snap motion across the field. The defensive answers here are absolutely not real football as the constraints with the interface apply.

I just put my end as a hard flat

phatalerror said:

Double-Mabling is exactly how I try to handle it, and it should work, right? Zone drops should make sense, no? But why should I be constrained by precise zone drops when no defender in the league plays that way. If the concept is Double Mable against Levels, why is my defensive back lurking where there is no one. Now I've adjusted my zone drops and my opponent can tell, because stock drops don't work, but now what I've done is stopping him. So now he goes No-Huddle and calls plays that target the gaps in coverage created by my Have-to-Explain-It-to-My-Defensive-Backs-Like-They're-Five zone drops. I have to force an incompletion or call a timeout to stop the clock. And once he gets inside the red zone, things can really go sideways with preset zone drops in that scenario.

As I've said -- repeatedly -- the interface is the problem. I know how to defend a concept like Levels, but in the end, my opponent actually is doing something besides one play repeatedly, and the zone coverages I am calling are to cover my backside for the times I guess wrong.

You keep framing everything like I'm insisting I should have a solves-everything-solution, and ignore entirely the context of my argument and the reason for my objections to the negative and occasionally crippling weaknesses in your "solution". I shouldn't have to put a laser pointer on the field for each one of my CPU-controlled defenders. I should be able to execute basic defensive concepts with a minimum of inputs without having literally everything in an appropriate coverage scheme being blown up by a couple hot routes and pre-snap motion across the field. The defensive answers here are absolutely not real football as the constraints with the interface apply.

There’s definitely a mode you can do that in the main menu, where you select quick game. Put the 2 teams you want to play each other. Make sure both controllers are in the middle so you don’t have to do anything, and then watch the computers play. 

sorry, there’s no 1 coverage solves all your problems in this game.

TheNickSix said:

There’s definitely a mode you can do that in the main menu, where you select quick game. Put the 2 teams you want to play each other. Make sure both controllers are in the middle so you don’t have to do anything, and then watch the computers play. 

sorry, there’s no 1 coverage solves all your problems in this game.

You've ignored all of my relevant complaints about interface. Clearly, you know it's not even, but you thought you'd come in and act like the doctor that can cure cancer like it's the common cold, and I'm showing you why that's not the case. Whatever, man. I can tell on the one hand you're trying to offer fair advice, but you're so stuck answering a question someone somewhere has asked once, but it's not the issue that is being discussed here. Telling me to stop playing is about as punk as you can get about it.

Dante88 said:

I just put my end as a hard flat

I do that frequently when I lack the time because I'm hedging more against the RPO that's being spammed more frequently. It takes away one route, but at the cost of a pass rusher. It does get me picks somewhat frequently when playing against lesser opponents. However, where I get chumped is when the backside pursuit is late and the rollout glitcher has a head of steam going toward the line of scrimmage, and when I release the leash on the end, he either whiffs on the tackle, or the receiver in the flat zone he abandoned is now wide open for a simple lob.

And strangely, this is often a sort of win for me, because I didn't give up the big play that can be surrendered on a lot of Y-Sail plays when the pass rush is worn out.

phatalerror said:

You've ignored all of my relevant complaints about interface. Clearly, you know it's not even, but you thought you'd come in and act like the doctor that can cure cancer like it's the common cold, and I'm showing you why that's not the case. Whatever, man. I can tell on the one hand you're trying to offer fair advice, but you're so stuck answering a question someone somewhere has asked once, but it's not the issue that is being discussed here. Telling me to stop playing is about as punk as you can get about it.

We had the same argument last year about the bunch strong offset meta, and how the combo of rpo bubble, durham, flood was too OP to be stopped. I really truly do not believe there is a play thats 1000% unstoppable. You consistently call players out for calling meta plays and call them cheaters and glitchers for using the plays that work the best. I just think the terms you're using are off, that's all. You want the player base to come down to your level, it's a sweaty gross community that'll do anything to eek out a 3 point win. The best advice anyone can give at this point in time is take a break, and come back next year when there are more casual players online. Nobody is gonna stop running meta concepts just because you can't stop it, nobody will feel bad because they only care about winning, people have done a lot worse to get wins.

TheNickSix said:

We had the same argument last year about the bunch strong offset meta, and how the combo of rpo bubble, durham, flood was too OP to be stopped. I really truly do not believe there is a play thats 1000% unstoppable. You consistently call players out for calling meta plays and call them cheaters and glitchers for using the plays that work the best. I just think the terms you're using are off, that's all. You want the player base to come down to your level, it's a sweaty gross community that'll do anything to eek out a 3 point win. The best advice anyone can give at this point in time is take a break, and come back next year when there are more casual players online. Nobody is gonna stop running meta concepts just because you can't stop it, nobody will feel bad because they only care about winning, people have done a lot worse to get wins.

You're right about the community at large, and it's been worse this year than I can ever remember. Maybe it's because the game is worse.

As for terminology, I had an epiphany about the state of the game, and decided that I would no longer split hairs about what to call palpably unfair acts when the intent of the acts was clear: If a boxer punches below the belt repeatedly, it doesn't matter whether or not the ref doesn't stop the fight or sanction the transgressor; doing so with intent is a palpably unsportsmanlike act, and is therefore cheating. Calling it "cheese" or "cheap" suggests that it is somehow not as immoral as outright "cheating", but how is doing something unfair or unsportsmanlike not cheating just because the game itself has no mechanism to sanction the user? So I will no longer use "cheese" or "cheap" to describe overpowered plays that are repeatedly used. I'm done with the semantics, and will freely dish out the full measure of the disrespect the offenders have justly earned.

Finally, the player base will do whatever it wants. When it's ready to come up to the level of decent gamers, it will be welcomed as warranted by all of the repentance demonstrated. Don't dignify or elevate cheaters, and do your part to set an example.

phatalerror said:

You're right about the community at large, and it's been worse this year than I can ever remember. Maybe it's because the game is worse.

As for terminology, I had an epiphany about the state of the game, and decided that I would no longer split hairs about what to call palpably unfair acts when the intent of the acts was clear: If a boxer punches below the belt repeatedly, it doesn't matter whether or not the ref doesn't stop the fight or sanction the transgressor; doing so with intent is a palpably unsportsmanlike act, and is therefore cheating. Calling it "cheese" or "cheap" suggests that it is somehow not as immoral as outright "cheating", but how is doing something unfair or unsportsmanlike not cheating just because the game itself has no mechanism to sanction the user? So I will no longer use "cheese" or "cheap" to describe overpowered plays that are repeatedly used. I'm done with the semantics, and will freely dish out the full measure of the disrespect the offenders have justly earned.

Finally, the player base will do whatever it wants. When it's ready to come up to the level of decent gamers, it will be welcomed as warranted by all of the repentance demonstrated. Don't dignify or elevate cheaters, and do your part to set an example.

Ya I’m just gonna continue to disagree, the boxing analogy doesn’t fit. You can get disqualified for punching below the belt in boxing. You can’t get disqualified in football for spamming plays. Strategically in real football it’s actually encouraged. I coached in a high school game where we really ran Iform strong, 46/47 power on 38/39 plays and the 39th play was taking a knee. In my current team i have an elite receiver and if the other team refuses to double team him, i will tell my qb to throw him fades until they roll a safety to him. 

When there is a mechanic in the game that’s truly unstoppable they do something about it (except film study desyncs). Earlier in the year we had the smart route glitch, that was for sure cheating and patched. A few years ago we had escape artist for 16 AP because it was too good, not a patch but if you used it you couldn’t use anything else. Madden 16? Idk a long long time ago had the qb walk glitch, cheating and patched. 

Play spamming, when done a certain way is just high level madden. The best players pick from 5 plays for 1-2 specific stock routes, and they hot route the other 3 to attack defenses how they see fit. That does take actual skill, just like it takes skill to find a way to stop it. 

I’m not for adaptive AI fine tuning your defense to stop someone just because you’re getting cooked. I don’t like adaptive AI, not vs the run game, not vs the pass game.

I just won another Super Bowl scored over 40 points only attempted 6 passes lmfao Faalele is so unstoppable 14 rushes for over 300 yards and 4 TDs 

The game was 14-13 at half then I used cover 3 hard flats out of 2-4 completely shutdown his y sail offense and gave me 3 interceptions amazing

phatalerror said:

It is. Too many people downplay it as something that should be in the game because it should take effort to beat your opponent on defense. Well, it’s not you beating me on offense. It’s the AI taking my defenders out of the play when I specifically told them, Shade Outside, cut Underneath, and they proceed to do almost nothing I asked them to do.

In the NFL, teams routinely run several practices a week. They drill on what they anticipate the opponent to do. When it comes time for the game, they anticipate what will happen next, and when the coaching is good, the anticipation pays off: The passing windows are tighter, the rush gets home faster, the gaps get plugged and runs get stuffed. Newsflash: There’s no equivalent to practice in MUT. I know that out of my next ten games, eight of my opponents will spam one or two plays of about eight overpowered offensive plays repeatedly. I can hold them off for a few plays, and after I know what they’re doing, I’d like my defenders to actually do what I would have instructed them to do in practice. I should be able to choose Cover 3 Whatever, and select a hot key equivalent scheme adjustment macro I practiced to defeat whatever it is I know is coming. And when I guess right, it shouldn’t end in a two-yard gain for the offense; it should get absolutely stuffed, the way it happens in the NFL when an entire defense anticipates correctly with coordinated precision and dominates of the offense from the snap. THAT would be skill. Not this Simon crap.

Did you know there’s a feature called practice mode?

TheNickSix said:

Ya I’m just gonna continue to disagree, the boxing analogy doesn’t fit. You can get disqualified for punching below the belt in boxing. You can’t get disqualified in football for spamming plays. Strategically in real football it’s actually encouraged. I coached in a high school game where we really ran Iform strong, 46/47 power on 38/39 plays and the 39th play was taking a knee. In my current team i have an elite receiver and if the other team refuses to double team him, i will tell my qb to throw him fades until they roll a safety to him. 

When there is a mechanic in the game that’s truly unstoppable they do something about it (except film study desyncs). Earlier in the year we had the smart route glitch, that was for sure cheating and patched. A few years ago we had escape artist for 16 AP because it was too good, not a patch but if you used it you couldn’t use anything else. Madden 16? Idk a long long time ago had the qb walk glitch, cheating and patched. 

Play spamming, when done a certain way is just high level madden. The best players pick from 5 plays for 1-2 specific stock routes, and they hot route the other 3 to attack defenses how they see fit. That does take actual skill, just like it takes skill to find a way to stop it. 

I’m not for adaptive AI fine tuning your defense to stop someone just because you’re getting cooked. I don’t like adaptive AI, not vs the run game, not vs the pass game.

"You can’t get disqualified in football for spamming plays."

No, you'll just lose to a team of even somewhat inferior strength coached by someone competent. My comments about interface, individual player AI, and having to babysit AI-controlled players continue to be brushed aside, but you don't see this in the NFL because it doesn't work. The players' intelligence is a big part of it. I don't watch NCAA football because it's a trash product full of broken plays by players of insufficient football intelligence to play in the NFL. High school is a step down from that. (I also think that a coach who coaches as you did trades away the children's opportunity to be educated for the dopamine rush of winning: Now you have a handful of kids with otherwise sufficient athleticism who can barely make a collegiate squad's special teams because they only know one or two plays. If I as a coach had the resources to scout my opposing teams and I saw what you were doing, we would come into practice the week before and run your offensive plays again and again, and by the time we hit Thursday or Friday, you would think our team had Mind Reader activated, and now your quarterback would be reduced to sandlotting every play, which is not a recipe for success on the football field at any level.)

"I’m not for adaptive AI fine tuning your defense to stop someone just because you’re getting cooked. I don’t like adaptive AI, not vs the run game, not vs the pass game."

I'm not really for this either, and this is where I commonly get misunderstood. There should be a feature in MUT Practice mode where I coach the players to play as I wish for them to play. I don't want Levels covered the way Madden's AI does it by default, so that I have to switch stick multiple times between different defenders because they aren't doing their jobs. I want to be able to input coaching direction as a macro with the capacity to stop a specific play. Once you throw in the factors of No Huddle and the 'five plays with one or two [overpowering, AI-defeating] stock routes', defense simply ceases to be effective. (Conversely, there are plays in Madden that almost never get called by high-end players. Why? Because the passing routes and blocking logic aren't effective because they don't glitch out the defense's stock AI. The problem is the AI.)

Of course you know that per-play offensive scoring in Madden is way above the mean in the NFL. Why is that? Because Madden's defensive AI is trash.

nchen3 said:

Did you know there’s a feature called practice mode?

Yes. I just explained what is needed to actually make it worth something.

(See my latest response to TheNickSix.)