elmerlee stated: Once again you did not answer 80% of what I ask.
I answer what I may and defer the other questions to David. In this case, I posted a quick answer to your questions, and I didn't dig through the build notes to see which issues were already corrected - partially because we are testing them still. When I post that issues are being addressed, they have usually been posted to a thread in the private forum and have been discussed or have been acted on. Please accept that I am not at liberty to post everything that is going on in the private forum, and it it is up to David if he wants to post in more detail.
Your reply to the "running in place" was not correct,and made little sense,as if differs with what David posted.
My "running in place" reply was correct, and it did differ from what David posted. They are different issues and are not mutually exclusive.
Your specific question was whether ball carriers look for an open hole, and my answer was that they do. If the blockers are all bunched, or there is no hole, the ball carrier will take an angle to an open area if he can. If he is trapped with defenders around him, he cannot always do that and will look like he is running in place.
The issue that David brought up is that the running back, or an player for that matter, will try to execute any command given to him. If the [MOVETO:] command runs a halfback up the back of the quarterback or linemen, he will run in place until the status is resolved.
This means that play design is important. One must test new plays in the PDS to make sure that the hole that the back is supposed to run through is actually a hole by the time he gets there. It also means that backs should be given movement commands that do not run through the quarterback dropping back for a pass.
Some community members may have noticed that the running back will nonger be given a free pass through the quarterback dropping back. Collision detection has been turned on when the quarterback is dropping back and some plays are affected because the running back, especially in a single back or I formation, has poorly designed commands. That is one reason that I am cleaning up some of the old playbooks.
There was debate as to whether the collision detection for the quarterback dropping back should be turned on for other players in the backfield. There is always a balance between realism and keeping things simple for game players. In this case realism was the greater value, because having running backs move through quarterbacks didn't look good. Play designers should know how to place their backs without using the [BLOCK: PASS] shortcut and no other movement. I have faith that this will not be an issue.
As for the "double stats" I didn't ask if it was known. I asked if it was fixed.
I have not been testing stats, so this isn't an area I wanted to go into depth with. As I stated above, if I tell you something is known or being addressed, it is being looked into and may already have been resolved. I generally answer questions with as much information as I either want to give or believe I am allowed to give considering I am under a NDA as part of the beta team.
The same goes for the kickoff error.
Again, I was making a quick post, and I answered as best I could recall. I do not always have the time to go into more detail.
And your reply to the FD on a TD is just incorrect. I believe this was decided earlier.
How was it just incorrect?
Section 1, (First Downs) of the NCAA rulebook states:
"Article 1. A first down shall be recorded whenever the yardsticks are ordered forward and/or when a touchdown is scored from scrimmage (rushing or passing) within a series of downs starting from 10 years or more from the goal line, or when a dead-ball foul results in an automatic first down."
"A team should get credit for a first down on any score made from the ten yard line and out in both American pro and American college rules."
I don't see anything in my reply that is incorrect.
I'm not really sure what the purpose is trying to call out a moderator on this board. That is especially valid in my case, as I have defended your comments many times in the private forum, and your brusque writing style tends to leave you without many defenders.
I appreciate your continued feedback, and I will try to answer any questions you may have, but I am not your personal assistant. Please keep that in mind.
< Message edited by Marauders -- 5/20/2008 8:16:48 PM >