“this is probably a multiplayer only issue and not one for SP so likely bottom of the list.” - Cleasby

This may come off as a bit of a rant, but this comment from Cleasby is a perfect introduction to a topic I feel it is important to address. This community has frequently grouped some desired features as for “multiplayer” or “SP”. I find this difficult to understand because I believe we all want the same thing: a realistic and fun football simulation (realistic in larger systems like finance, and in the details of the actual football).

This may be an accurate dichotomy in some instances, but there is one specific area where I feel this separation of multiplayer and SP reflects a deeper issue with the game and offers incredible opportunities to improve both the multiplayer league and SP experience: Custom Plays.

Custom Plays are broadly disdained within the multiplayer community and almost no leagues allow them. Brooks_piggott himself once said he would never play in a multiplayer league that allowed them. So why is this? Why is it a major feature within the game, which offers many advantages (I will get into later) is completely unutilized? To my mind for one reason: Balance. As they stand custom plays can be quite easily exploited to massive advantage for the offense, I myself have made past posts demonstrating some of these exploits in the motion system. It doesn't have to be this way.

The core issue, the reason these exploits exist is simple. The Defense is massively behind, missing important features and relatively helpless when faced with a crafty user's custom plays. Some updates to 2021 addressed a few of the issues but the problem remains. This needs to be fixed, and as a player base multiplayer or SP we should be active in encouraging further improvements. Improvements to the defense will lead to a more compelling and strategy rich game in all other aspects including the draft, finances, and other broad management features, all the way down to the single game. This may seem extreme but if the defense was improved it would change what we value, both on offense and defense.

You may disagree with me about the reason, but let me ask, If the custom play feature was balanced would you use it in your multiplayer leagues?

Your initial reaction may be no, then hear me out. If they were balanced and usable, custom plays have the potential to greatly deepen the strategy in your games and create a feeling of uniqueness and style to individual teams within your leagues. A few examples:

Say you recently drafted a Guard who happens to be quite fast (say 62 speed). Guards above 60 speed are generally excellent at pulling. No running plays with pulling exist in the base play set, wouldn't you like to be able to utilize the speed of your new guard and pull him around to clear out some LBs on a sweep? A distinct advantage to drafting quicker interior lineman that can not be used outside of custom plays.

Maybe you have a great pass catching back, wouldn't you love to have your team get creative in motion and sent him out on some routes from the slot? Those routes from the back field are great, but not really the full picture are they?

How about play action? It's true there are some play action plays in the base list, but the number is pretty limited, i'm sure you could come up with some fun ones.

Or do the limited and unrealistic route combinations found in the base plays bother you? They bother me.

This list of examples is limited because this post is already way too long. But if you use your imagination I'm sure it will be clear to you that being able to use custom plays could really enhance your multiplayer league experience, possibly change what you value in a draft, and add tons of variety in team styles to your competition.

So please, if you are in a multiplayer league don't entirely give up on the custom play feature as unimportant to you. And no matter how you play, please help me campaign for improvements to the Defense, even if you don't, and never will, use custom plays. I believe improvements to the defensive strategy and options will greatly enhance your DDPF2022 experience.

DDPF2022 is, at least in my mind, already the absolute best football simulation game available. And the devs have continually improved it, but it still has so much untapped potential. Largely hamstrung by the antiquated defensive systems.

Hey Zimmer,

Appreciate the quote and the detailed discussion points on custom plays and multiplayer versus singleplayer. Since you quoted me I figured I would have a stab at responding to you to provide my views, I hope that is ok.

Full disclaimer I am a multiplayer only user of the game. Singleplayer is simply too easy on hard mode and too many exploits without human GMs for me to enjoy that side of the game. So my comments are purely from a multplayer point of view.

I agree that we (SP and MP) want the same thing a realistic and fun football simulation (realistic in larger systems like finance, and in the details of the actual football). This is what drives out passion and excitement for the game to see how each year the WS team make progress on this count. My quote: "this is probably a multiplayer only issue and not one for SP so likely bottom of the list" is in reference to the fact multiplayer users are 1% of the games revenue stream so whilst we play the game to the extreme we accept that enhancements such as rookie contracts, which singleplayers I imagine dont want the level of micromanagement we want is and should be at the back of the queue over other aspects. But it does not stop us from asking for some improvements that would save us countless hours from manually entering contracts in during a draft.

In terms of your custom plays issues I will confess that I have only explored the custom plays areas briefly (less than maybe 10-15 hours looking at it) and I agree its a cool idea and does push the boundary of what the game can offer. I mean we have all sat there drawing up crazy plays like we are on Any Given Sunday!

From a multiplayer perspective the custom play element would be great to use but it is simply far too easy to explot gameplay mechanics if this was allowed. As you said balancing issues are the crux of it. Do I think it is a defence only issue that prevents multiplayer use? No I think it is both sides of the ball that would need to keep gradually improving to enable hardcore multiplayer leagues to allow it.
For example we already see no use of 5-2 3-4 and 4-3 on defence in multiplayer or matching CBs to WR as its far too each to exploit. We also see on offence that long passing carries less risk than it should and short medium passes are ineffective. Running the ball outside is the only effective rushing method as inside runs are swallowed up (something I know the dev team are looking at for the next build which is great).

So what does this mean? Well if I compare it to probably the greatest GM/management game ever football manager/championship manager series I would say that this game is at a stage similar to where it was at the start. You could only select certain formation and strategy type. The football manager development team worked on refining this as best they could until the game engine was at a developed stage that it could handle people putting player in positions wherever they wanted and add rotines for corners, free kicks etc. This lead to game exploits and abuse similar to my DDS references above. The dev team then refined this over the next few versions and patches until it prevented this type of gameplay abuse. For those interested and immediately umping to football manager has more money I am comparing 1992 Championship manager to 2002.

I see DDS in the middle of this gameplay development phase and refining the exploit areas before items like custom plays become standard for both SP and MPs. I personally would really like to see a refinement in the gameplay areas over the next few versions to enable a rangeof styles to win in multiplayer, I imagine that is what singleplayers want too.

So I agree with your idea that custom plays would be great for multiplayer and could open a whole new dynamic to leagues, I do not think that work is unimportant. But unfortunately I do not think the game is at a stage yet to use this without abuse. Hopefully we see some promising gameplay enhancements to get us to a stage where we can be discussing custom playbooks and designs for a range of offence styles accross the forum

I think it depends on the league and the mode. We did set it up where people who create custom plays can be forced to share them with everyone, so that you could enjoy the expansion of the play selection without people creating them just for AI breaking plays. Am I ever going to code a defense that will auto adjust to any kind of custom play that someone builds? Nope. Not even going to try. Best we can do is improve the defense decision making so that much of the default behaviors and positioning are corrected, which we do with every version. If you're finding gaps in the engine related to those items feel free to post so we can take a look at them.

First off I'd like to say that I never meant to diminish the quality of your improvements or your work. I appreciate how complicated coding a game like this is, and it is undeniable that you have made many many improvements with each addition and patch. The goal of my post is to lay out the argument that the biggest thing holding back the game in its current state are a smattering of defensive issues especially with pass coverage.

These issues are not just with custom plays, but occur in stock plays as well.

I believe that with a few key fixes to the coverage system(though some of them may be very hard to implement), every exploit I am currently aware of could be defused, and the defensive system would be in a real working order, if not perfect (nothing ever is, after all).

As for specific issues, here is the state of the issues as I see it (though I'm open to the idea that i'm wrong or missing things). The Coverage system currently faces a number of major problems, which manifest in different ways in man and zone.

Man Coverage

The biggest issues in defensive plays that are primarily man are alignment and assignment. We will look at alignment first.

As a basic example: the defense is in Nickel Cover 2 shell man under (Both safeties assigned “deep zone”, CBs, NB, and LBS all assigned “cover”, and all D-lineman assigned “rush”), And the Offense called Shotgun: Quick slants. Because the NB who should be covering the Slot receiver begins the play aligned so far away, when the slot receiver breaks outside he is unreachable by the NB, this leaves the CB with the impossible choice of which receiver to cover. (not that this offensive play is particularly dangerous, just an easy example.

You see the same problems of alignment when using the motion system in custom plays. The solution I see to this problem is simple (though maybe not simple to implement, IDK). Pre-snap adjustments by defensive players. For instance the NB in the example above should move pre-snap to be aligned near the slot receiver. I imagine given the limited number of formations available in the game these kind of basic adjustments could be made automatically based on the formations in question and the coverage responsibilities determined by the defensive play. This alone would solve many major problems with man coverage schemes. Ideally Safeties and linebackers could re-align better for their man coverage as well. In real football defenses move and adjust pre-snap. I'm not asking for fancy disguised coverage, just to get our man defenders aligned near the receivers they are meant to cover. The lack of pre-snap adjustments also makes several defensive formations unusable in multiplayer as Cleasby stated previously.

Now concerning assignment. The problem of assignment is very easy to state. Often defenders attempt to cover the same receiver while leaving other nearby receivers uncovered. I don't think I need an example to describe this, or for you to imagine the ensuing disasters. This happens in all manner of coverage mixtures though I think the causes may different in man vs zone. Either way it is clear that AI gets confused about coverage assignments.

Zone Coverage

Zone coverage is more complicated, and faces more complicated problems. In previous posts we have already talked about “deep zone” and “Flat”, and I am aware the developers are working and have been working on these. That will go a long way. The “deep zones” in particular will be key to fixing many of the biggest problems.

The four biggest problems with the zone defensive system are what I will call “Bunching”, “Zone discipline”, “zone mapping”, “Coverage behavior”

1.Bunching: In zone, and mixed coverage plays, defenders often crowd a small area of the field (generally but not always the middle, about 5 to 10 yards off from scrimmage and roughly between the hashes), or double and even triple team the same receiver while leaving other nearby defenders uncovered.

2. Zone Discipline: Zone defenders abandon their zones after a short period of time and engage in man coverage with the nearest receiver or run toward the backfield (often getting tangled up with the lineman), this often causes “Bunching” but also often leaves large sections of the field undefended allowing for a lot pretty embarrassing plays in areas that should at least be occupied by a defender.

3. Zone Mapping: This is probably the one least likely to be fixed, But the zone areas are not clearly defined, even the AI seems confused. Often Zone defenders will end up trying to cover the same small area (for as long as they do, given the zone discipline issues), and the game obviously does not break the field into clearly defined zones, the very basis of the zone coverage concept. This means that plays which make heavy use of zone don't cover the field effectively and leave not seams (like in real zone defenses might) but massive gaps. Below are two examples of generic zone maps.





4. Zone Coverage behavior: The current coverage behavior of zone defenders is basically this: They hang around in a spot near their formation dictated place, then attempt to man cover the nearest receiver. This is not zone coverage. While actual zone coverage systems can be very complex, basically what we need is defenders to cover receivers within an area, and maybe under some circumstances, like deep routes, switch to man after they leave that area.

The other issue with the behavior is that because they just play man with the nearest receiver we are missing a “softer” over the top coverage behavior. In an Ideal system we would have some options and variation as to how soft the coverage is, but this is a big and probably unnecessary ask. What we need for the system to work, and be different from man, is for the defender to play soft, following the receiver from over the top and reacting when the ball is thrown. This should allow zone defenses to keep a better lid on the offense and reduce the risk of big passing plays, which is a clear issue as Cleasby pointed out.

There are of course other problems and additions I would love to see, like more blitzing paths, some more d-line options etc. But they don't matter, not until the coverage problems are solved. I truly believe that making some changes addressing these problems would drastically improve the game, and I believe that if these solutions are well implemented we would no longer need to worry about potentially exploitative custom plays in multi or single player. And further it would open up a whole breath of depth and intricacy to the game that cannot currently exist.

I would like to agree with the OP,.. the game needs an overhaul on defense to match the options on offense.

I have never seen a football game that has been developed that its defense will auto-adjust to any type of play that you create. The best way to solve this problem is for every customized play you create you also create a defensive play to counter it. In theory, you then should be able to update the defensive scheme the AI can use in order to provide the play as an option so the AI has an option to use it. Another way around this is from a design option is to have coaching situational profiles that can be modified for every Team. Having the option to add plays to profiles globally as well as Team specific would be an added bonus. For me maybe I am in the minority although I appreciate the option for multiplayer frankly I would be fine if the game had single-player only with the development focus always being on customized play options, AI development with ever more flexibility in a coach specific profiles to allow the Teams more individual options for their specific talent on their Team.

@zowee77

The concept of pre snap adjustment I outlined is not "auto-adjust". It is pre snap re-alinement for man coverage assigned defenders. Because the game by necessity includes the information of any play being run in the games this should be quite possible. its just a positional check pre snap that gives man defenders the ability to line up across from (and nearer to) the receiver they are meant to cover on a given play.

Defensive plays do not need to be created to "counter" specific plays. The fact of the matter is much simpler. The exploits that occur in the current game as I explained above are a function of the insufficient pass coverage logic leaving some receivers (or areas of the field in zone) in some route and motion combinations functionally uncoverable.

though there are other issues with the game these fixes would also address like the fact that CBs cannot be supported with safety help currently.

In addition such a system as "auto-adjust" as I think you mean it, or hard countering plays would render the whole idea of play calling pointless. Just as it should be rewarding to call a play that fits the game state, it should be punishing to make a bad play call. Both these ideas would more or less remove the decision effects of playcalling choice.

The solution we need must work for multiplayer and singleplayer, must fix issues that occur both in custom and stock plays, and must make sense in Football terms. These solutions clearly exist without the need to devise complex AI coaches.

Obviously sometimes plays fall apart in football and big plays should occur. But as a players we should have Defensive options, backed by sound coverage logic, that give us reasonable options to minimize that risk as well as the risk of uncovered receivers. We dont need hard counters on defense just a general elimination of the bizarre coverage behaviors and an answer to the overly powerful deepball that currently haunts the game.

Basically as far as I can tell from this, we need to make sure that zone players follow receivers in their zone, but then pass off when receivers move into another zone. And we need to update man coverage to take into account motion, and possibly adjust the positioning so they're close to the person they're supposed to be covering.

Some of this is already in the game but we could be having issues with players failing intelligence checks, not waiting long enough, etc. But we can definitely look at it a bit closer.

I think that is definitely most of it. I dont know how the code is written (obviously) so all I can do is describe symptoms.

Makes sense that much of it could be failed intelligence checks, but if that's the case It may happen to frequently, especially with higher intelligence players and the consequences may be too dramatic for the frequency. Zone players definitely need to wait longer.

Again I appreciate your time Brooks. Thanks for taking a look.

NotMikeZimmer wrote:I think that is definitely most of it. I dont know how the code is written (obviously) so all I can do is describe symptoms.

Makes sense that much of it could be failed intelligence checks, but if that's the case It may happen to frequently, especially with higher intelligence players and the consequences may be too dramatic for the frequency. Zone players definitely need to wait longer.

Again I appreciate your time Brooks. Thanks for taking a look.

This is spot on from what I have seen in describing the symptoms.

I also wondered whether there needs to be scheme proficiencies added to the game. So for example an ability to play man or zone on defence or something like that. Which could in theory make defence building very interesting and make it clearer to the user if they have the players to run certain schemes etc.

Of course that is a radical move from where the game is now so maybe not a first access type fix.