Rucks, to button mash or to not to button mash, that is the question?

[lionmaull]

So much speculation on this. Here is my take on rucks and button mash, and AJ and rest of people who have played can confirm or not.

First, I am sure button mash has different meaning for different people.

I am pretty sure if you button mash on every ruck, you will end up losing the game, you may end having more ruck turnovers, but you will also end up having more penalties against you. I am thinking the way it works is you have to be patient, and know when to apply preasure in the rucks, you do this by paying attention to what going on in the game and seize the oppurtunity when the oppurtunity arrives, if you see that you have players closer to the ruck on defense then you aggresively get on the ruck button(button mash) when the time comes, given you a better chance to steal at ruck, on offense I would say it is the opposite if you have players in close support to the ruck you can be more relaxed on the rucking button, (the amount of preasure you apply I am sure also varies from team to team, which is realistic).
Now this is were the rucking tactics also brings a big strategy into the rucking, PEOPLE YOU CAN CHANGE THIS ON THE FLY!!!!,
This is what I believe makes the huge difference between 08, and 2011. Example: If you are driving with your fowards up the middle and have the rucking strategy on forward rucking, then this is the best setting, but if you decide to go out wide and lose your forward support, I am would think it would be better to switch to first player to ruck(in the rucking tactics) to have a better chance to retain the ball, or steal the ball if on defense(now in doing this you may lose a wing or back to the ruck so that you will have less(speed) attacking possibilties, but "hey" atleast you have mantained possesion of the ball). It seems like we have been given more then enough options at the ruck, people just have to know how to use it. If the rugby tactics work how I think they work combined with the new rucking system, I think we will have a real winner in ruck play.
Some questions I have are? For AJ or those who have played the game?

If you do not press the rucking button will less players be envolved in the ruck, or just less preasure? Does more preasure mean more players commited to the ruck ?? Example, if you know there is no chance to win the ruck can you save your players for holding the line on defense, or will the ai automatically throw bodies into the ruck? I did like this in 08, it was not perfect, but you needed to know when not to send people into the ruck and keep them on the line for line defense I hope this aspect is still in place.Then you also have the hands in ruck function, and kill the ball function which I believe has been slightly changed/or modified. Would be cool if it had a "Referee eyes on ruck meter"stop light meter",where it would be like a very small window to use your hand in rucks, green: refs not looking, yellow: your taking a chance, red:most likely will get penalized, does'nt have to be every ruck, can happen at random. This happens all the time in real rugby, all the time.

What does the( balance )tactic for rucking do, does the ai determine which one to choose forward or first to ball, does the ai not always make the correct choice, and that is why it would be smart to not always use that tactic? I'm thinking it has to be like that if not what would be the point, if the ai always made the correct choice on to either throw the first player in or wait for a forward there would be no point in using the other two tactics.

In any case it looks like it could be a fun system to learn.
Yea, as you can see I really like the breakdown play of rugby, I really think it is the heart of Union Rugby, so many things are determined by the way the ruck and breakdown is handled.
Cheers and Salud
EDIT:
I have really, really, been pushing and being positive about the rucks and think they have added some great additions, now saying this, I have found somthing, I hope I am wrong, it looks like there is always three players commited to the ruck ALWAYS??
I really like the new system but if this is the case, this I believe will take away some strategy, because we should be able to still decide how many go into the ruck More preasure = more players, three always is unrealistic(You will have the same number of players to defend with then always, no more over committing in the rucks????, I'm hoping that I saw it wrong because that means every rucking animation is the same, I'm hoping the rucking tactics will change this. The best would of been a combo of 08 with 2011, I guess we will see because , I have defended this new system greatly.

 

[action1978]

only a few days til you can determine this yourself.

 

[HB_AJ]

Hi guys,

I believe I may have talked about this elsewhere, though perhaps not on the forum. Your team will always commit three players to the ruck. Which three players is determined by the tactic you have selected. These can be selected at any time - even during cut scenes (as can defensive tactics).

We found that a ruck intensity mechanic as well as a second simultaneous mechanic to add or subtract players from the ruck is not as fun and slows the flow of play - which worked against our design goal. In 08 and our previous rugby games, you influenced the contest at the breakdown only by how many players you would add to the ruck. What we observed when people played this phase of our games was that they would simply begin mashing X as soon as they anticipated a tackle. It didn't matter if they would then overcommit players creating holes in the defensive line, their instinct was to mash. We wanted to acknowledge this natural tendency but to add a more explicit risk vs reward element to it - which led to the current design.

As you'll learn, and as Chris learned, you can be punished for indiscriminate button mashing through unintended offloads and through ruck infringements. We also see more structure in the back line as we aren't pulling in more players to support a button mash breakdown.

That said, three players are always committed on defense as well for balancing reasons.

As I've said elsewhere, if this new mechanic proves to be successful and popular, we may look to add an option for uncontested rucks in the future as they certainly are an important part of the game that we would like to see in there if we can include them in a way that supports fast flowing and fun gameplay.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Hi guys,

I believe I may have talked about this elsewhere, though perhaps not on the forum. Your team will always commit three players to the ruck. Which three players is determined by the tactic you have selected. These can be selected at any time - even during cut scenes (as can defensive tactics).

We found that a ruck intensity mechanic as well as a second simultaneous mechanic to add or subtract players from the ruck is not as fun and slows the flow of play - which worked against our design goal. In 08 and our previous rugby games, you influenced the contest at the breakdown only by how many players you would add to the ruck. What we observed when people played this phase of our games was that they would simply begin mashing X as soon as they anticipated a tackle. It didn't matter if they would then overcommit players creating holes in the defensive line, their instinct was to mash. We wanted to acknowledge this natural tendency but to add a more explicit risk vs reward element to it - which led to the current design.

As you'll learn, and as Chris learned, you can be punished for indiscriminate button mashing through unintended offloads and through ruck infringements. We also see more structure in the back line as we aren't pulling in more players to support a button mash breakdown.

That said three players are always committed on defense as well, for a balancing reasons.

This makes things a little clearer as to how this works, but it's really going to be hard to tell how well this works for the masses until we get our hands on it. Hopefully you guys have found a good workable idea for the future here. I have to take on trust the good feedback I've heard from the other guys

As I've said elsewhere, if this new mechanic proves to be successful and popular, we may look to add an option for uncontested rucks in the future as they certainly are an important part of the game that we would like to see in there if we can include them in a way that supports fast flowing and fun gameplay.

Uncontested rucks?!! I'm reaaally unsure if things need to go so far as this important facet of rugby gaming becoming completely uncontested. I won't know until I play it, but this makes me concerned that there could be too much of an emphasis on fast and flowing.

I'm firmly of a mind in this regard that Rugby is at it's most basic level a game of two teams (forwards and backs) working together fluidly to defeat another team comprised of two teams. Of course, there is a merging of roles when a forward isn't there and a back must commit, or when the backs can't be ready, then a forward is there for the backline move. I'm over-simplifying, but you get my point.



What I mean is that forward play is a different game to back play and that game within itself, slows down the game of the backs. This is not a bad thing!!! I'm really passionate about this and going into this game I'm genuinely worried that forward play is going to be a game the AI plays really.

I'm going to devote a lot of time to trying to develop ideas to bring back a game for the forwards. Up until the development of this game, I really didn't feel people were listening (although you guys really were ), so I just didn't put in as much effort as I could've.

I know best fullback is also a guy very keen on there being a forwards game within the larger game too and I'm sure there are many others.

I really am terribly worried that this is partly to do with developing new players into the rugby gaming scene by making quick, accessible, pick up and play, being a major focus.


Not having a go in any way, this is just one of the most important parts of rugby gaming to me, as good back play is generally something you guys are developing extremely well.


I just don't want rugby gaming turning into "99% back-line rugby". Rugby with just backs, forwards or whoever can get there, running the ball at the line via various attacking moves.

 

[HB_AJ]

You'll see the forwards more involved in play in RWC2011 than in any other of our games to date.

Look forward to your feedback on this new system.

 

[HB_AJ]

And to be clear by "uncontested rucks", I mean defensive teams not committing players to the breakdown.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

You'll see the forwards more involved in play in RWC2011 than in any other of our games to date.

Look forward to your feedback on this new system.

No problems with that AJ. From what I've heard so far, all who've played it have been very happy with your current system. So I'm really looking forward to it. I'm more than prepared to give it a fair crack and it's dues should it be the success it's shaping to be.


I've just got in mind that it'd be incredibly good to have a system that'd allow for a good quick ruck contest. It'd be amazingly hard to come up with a good way to do this though, so I'm not under any illusions that you guys haven't run through dozens of scenarios already.

And to be clear by "uncontested rucks", I mean defensive teams not committing players to the breakdown.

Are you meaning by this, that the AI will make a very quick decision regarding the contestability of the ruck and should it not make the criteria, the AI will not commit to the ruck on defence and will instead perhaps install a close defender on either side of the ruck and put any other men throughout the defensive line?

If so, then that does sound like a very good idea done that way. I believe I made a mistake in my initial reading of your idea and had it a bit wrong. I thought you just mean that every ruck in the game would be decided by the AI.

 

[lionmaull]

Hi guys,

I believe I may have talked about this elsewhere, though perhaps not on the forum. Your team will always commit three players to the ruck. Which three players is determined by the tactic you have selected. These can be selected at any time - even during cut scenes (as can defensive tactics).

We found that a ruck intensity mechanic as well as a second simultaneous mechanic to add or subtract players from the ruck is not as fun and slows the flow of play - which worked against our design goal. In 08 and our previous rugby games, you influenced the contest at the breakdown only by how many players you would add to the ruck. What we observed when people played this phase of our games was that they would simply begin mashing X as soon as they anticipated a tackle. It didn't matter if they would then overcommit players creating holes in the defensive line, their instinct was to mash. We wanted to acknowledge this natural tendency but to add a more explicit risk vs reward element to it - which led to the current design.

As you'll learn, and as Chris learned, you can be punished for indiscriminate button mashing through unintended offloads and through ruck infringements. We also see more structure in the back line as we aren't pulling in more players to support a button mash breakdown.

That said three players are always committed on defense as well, for a balancing reasons.

As I've said elsewhere, if this new mechanic proves to be successful and popular, we may look to add an option for uncontested rucks in the future as they certainly are an important part of the game that we would like to see in there if we can include them in a way that supports fast flowing and fun gameplay.

Thanks again AJ for answersing these questions? It really is amazing how you guy take the time to listen and discuss the game. I really respect that.
I understand your point, to the casual gamer it may be a better system, and along with the new rucking tactics it may become a better way to handle rucks in a video game, the problem is with people that trully play the game how it should be played(simulation rugby), I for one would never button mash in 08, I would wait for the oppurtunity and then add as many players I could when I thought I had a chance for turnover, or when I needed to retain the ball out wide or when I needed to stall a little in game. The tactics of adding players to a ruck, is a strategy you really had to balance out, because if not you would get caught with not enough players to defend the line, you had to know when to use it and when to not it to was a risk/reward system. I personaly think the old system combined with the new would of made a hybrid rucking system that would of had a tremendous amount of strategy. Well, in any case it is what it is, It is definetly a different approach to rucking, and that is why it iritates me when people say the game is an upgraded 08, it is definetly NOT, these changes are major changes to the way the game will be played. We will have to play for some time to find out. Well, maybe in future versions, there can be two systems, one for automatic rucks (balance n rucks and game) and manual rucks where you can decide the amount of players and amount preasure in the ruck. Looking forward tremendously to play the game, and I believe all in all it will be a better game then 08.
Cheers and Salud

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Thanks again AJ for answersing these questions? It really is amazing how you guy take the time to listen and discuss the game. I really respect that.
I understand your point, to the casual gamer it may be a better system, and along with the new rucking tactics it may become a better way to handle rucks in a video game, the problem is with people that trully play the game how it should be played(simulation rugby), I for one would never button mash in 08, I would wait for the oppurtunity and then add as many players I could when I thought I had a chance for turnover, or when I needed to retain the ball out wide or when I needed to stall a little in game. The tactics of adding players to a ruck, is a strategy you really had to balance out, because if not you would get caught with not enough players to defend the line, you had to know when to use it and when to not it to was a risk/reward system. I personaly think the old system combined with the new would of made a hybrid rucking system that would of had a tremendous amount of strategy. Well, in any case it is what it is, It is definetly a different approach to rucking, and that is why it iritates me when people say the game is an upgraded 08, it is definetly NOT, these changes are major changes to the way the game will be played. We will have to play for some time to find out. Well, maybe in future versions, there can be two systems, one for automatic rucks (balance n rucks and game) and manual rucks where you can decide the amount of players and amount preasure in the ruck. Looking forward tremendously to play the game, and I believe all in all it will be a better game then 08.
Cheers and Salud

Totally agree with you lionmaull, that it's great that AJ answers questions for people like us in relation to such an important aspect of the game and takes the time to explain how it works for us.

Personally I'm extremely happy that the first player to a ruck after a tackle can steal the ball if they are there quick enough to a good isolated tackle. That's a brilliant step forward within itself.

 

[HB_AJ]

Are you meaning by this, that the AI will make a very quick decision regarding the contestability of the ruck and should it not make the criteria, the AI will not commit to the ruck on defence and will instead perhaps install a close defender on either side of the ruck and put any other men throughout the defensive line?

Yes and giving the user the control to be able to do this as well. Doing so, however, would take some of the fun out of attacking as the defense would be even more impenetrable. Some people would like the realism, and the challenge. Our impression was that it becomes less fun - which is always our primary goal in designing the gameplay.

Maybe if we can crack a way to keep it as fun, we'll see this in the future. It didn't get in for the RWC.

 

[Duckdee]

Yes and giving the user the control to be able to do this as well. Doing so, however, would take some of the fun out of attacking as the defense would be even more impenetrable. Some people would like the realism, and the challenge. Our impression was that it becomes less fun - which is always our primary goal in designing the gameplay.

Maybe if we can crack a way to keep it as fun, we'll see this in the future. It didn't get in for the RWC.

Would it be difficult to add it as an extra option, rather than going either-or?

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Yes and giving the user the control to be able to do this as well. Doing so, however, would take some of the fun out of attacking as the defense would be even more impenetrable. Some people would like the realism, and the challenge. Our impression was that it becomes less fun - which is always our primary goal in designing the gameplay.

Maybe if we can crack a way to keep it as fun, we'll see this in the future. It didn't get in for the RWC.

My speciality is thinking of ideas. Not all of them good, but I hope this might be of use.

Here's a suggestions for that.

A little like in real life, not committing players and conceding a ruck leaves the attack not as many options but to attempt forward runs chewing up a metre or two more than usual and grinding it up the field. So the attacking player may find in that instance that for the while that the defence employs that tactic, forward runs from the attacker can be tackled but the forward player drags an extra metre or two than normal and is less likely to be turned over. So in that instance the defence would have to land a very good tackle on them to either cause a spill or increase the chance of a turnover. This whole tactic would add a little dimension to forward play.

Meanwhile some members of that defensive line might come up a little more aggressively on back line moves whenever the first five (or further out) gets the ball. This could be due to having the confidence of more players in their defensive line and they could either smash the attacking player or on the other hand they might leave a hole where they rushed up a little too much from their zone of the field. A well timed pass to the left or right by the attacking player would hopefully reach a player who may have a chance of exploiting that new gap.


The idea you guys have sounds good, so I had to try and suggest something to make it more viable!

 

[HB_AJ]

Much of what you've described could be experienced in RWC 2011. Forwards running off of rucks and mauls add a lot of new dimensions. With the new kicks there are more attacking options than ever, among both forwards and backs.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

On another note I had an idea at one stage that maybe it'd be possible to have an option for something that isn't entirely realistic, but when read into does have some realism and is also a lot of fun.

Breaking tackles in the game is at the moment something stat driven and that's fair enough. You wouldn't want people perfecting a technique and then just breaking tackles left and right all game long.

My idea is something akin to every player who's rated high in the strength or tackle breaking category (about 80-85 minimum for each), should be strong enough to rip out of or step out of some one on one tackles.

I'd find it pretty cool myself if once in a game (at most twice), you could use a stamina draining tackle bust type of move once per player with those stats. The button used would be R3 and it'd be accompanied by some controller vibration.

The cost to this move is that it'd drain your strength stat, your ball winning stat, your tackling stat and your tackle breaking stat for the rest of that game (strength dropping by 10 - ball winning, by 5, tackling by 5, tackle breaking by 5). The player would be temporarily be slightly slower (5-10) for making the bust also.

Also, you couldn't use this within 10metres from the line, as defences are surely stronger closer to the line, so shouldn't be busted by such things for cheap tries.


The strategies that this would bring to the game are wide ranging. Players in certain parts of the field would be able to bust the line wide open, yet, not sprint away for tries.

They'd be tired players later on or immediately after using this ability, so their work rate would suffer.

Rucks would be marginally harder to win.


With this idea, I could imagine most players having the sense not to over use it early, as sure they might get out to a 19 point lead, using it, but due to weaker ballwinning and other stats from that point on, the other team would come back at them via possession etc.

I could see a smart player enacting this between the 60-80min time frame, but I suppose the later they'd use it, the less effectual it might be, as players get tired towards the end of the game and this enhanced tackle break ability would be slightly less effective.

I mainly envision it as an opportunity to give the user control of what we see some of the great surging forwards of the world do in real life and break the occasional tackle to break that defensive line and provide good ball to players who'd then run off the shoulder by a few metres and could take off for the line. In my opinion it'd add to forward play.

Anyhow, what's anyone think of that?

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Much of what you've described could be experienced in RWC 2011. Forwards running off of rucks and mauls add a lot of new dimensions. With the new kicks there are more attacking options than ever, among both forwards and backs.

Wow, it sounds like I've just thought up something similar to what you guys have already just implemented, but I just happen not to have played the game yet to know that. :lol:

 

[OnTheBall]

To be honest, I've been pretty impressed with what I've heard about forward play and rucking improvements in this game. Along with the chip kicks I think that this game will have a lot of added variety over 08.
Both rugby games seem to have their strong points, but forward play is not something I've been convinced of yet in the other ***le.

 

[raziel_eire]

I like this sort of discussion...

How about on top of the current tactics options, ruck strategy and defensive strategy, you include anther "ruck agression" strategy.

Ruck agression would consist of the following 3 options:

1. Balanced (default option)
This option works as currently setup in the RWC2011 game, where the team will automatically send the default 3 players and 3 players only into a ruck. What 3 players (either forwards, nearest man or balanced) enter the ruck is still determined by the ruck strategy options provided and you still have the ruck intensity meter to contest over.

2. Hold Back
This options holds your players back from the ruck, not contesting possesion, but keeping your players in the defensive line. This option will bring 2 players to stand defence immediately either side of the ruck (1 on each side) to tackle pick&gos or sniping runs from the scrumhalf. The rest of the players fill out the defensive line.

3. Pile In
This option continues to bring extra players (above the default 3) to the ruck until possesion is locked in or won on the intensity meter. Again this option works in tandem with existing ruck strategy options, so you could end up with alot of backs in the breakdown area depending on the option you've selected.
By adding more players and based off the cumulative rucking attributes of the players in the ruck, this would impact on how much intensity was required to win a ruck. Typically, more players = higher rucking value = lower intensity required/less chance of giving away penalties.
However, depending on how you use the ruck strategy options, you could end up with 5 backs in a ruck (having chosen nearest man and the ball was spun wide in the previous phase) up against 3 forwards (the defensive team sticking to the forward only rucking strategy and default for our new rucking aggression). In this instance, the 3 forwards would have a greater combined rucking value so less intensity would be required to win against the poorer rucking ability, but greater number, backs.
This would hopefully negate the previous issue of a team always adding the most players would win the ruck.

Now I'm not sure on the controls for RWC2011 and its strategies, so I may overlap in terms of button combinations with what is currently in place.

Basically what I would envisage would be a menu option based off the current FIFA11 model, where selecting UP on the d-pad brings up a quick sub-menu that lists 4 options (each associated with a direction on the d-pad).
The rucking agression options would be selected for example by pushing UP once to bring up the 3 options available, then pushing in 1 of 3 directions to choose your option.


Not perfect by any means but something to think about perhaps?

 

[HB_AJ]

I like this sort of discussion...

How about on top of the current tactics options, ruck strategy and defensive strategy, you include anther "ruck agression" strategy.

Ruck agression would consist of the following 3 options:

1. Balanced (default option)
This option works as currently setup in the RWC2011 game, where the team will automatically send the default 3 players and 3 players only into a ruck. What 3 players (either forwards, nearest man or balanced) enter the ruck is still determined by the ruck strategy options provided and you still have the ruck intensity meter to contest over.

2. Hold Back
This options holds your players back from the ruck, not contesting possesion, but keeping your players in the defensive line. This option will bring 2 players to stand defence immediately either side of the ruck (1 on each side) to tackle pick&gos or sniping runs from the scrumhalf. The rest of the players fill out the defensive line.

3. Pile In
This option continues to bring extra players (above the default 3) to the ruck until possesion is locked in or won on the intensity meter. Again this option works in tandem with existing ruck strategy options, so you could end up with alot of backs in the breakdown area depending on the option you've selected.
By adding more players and based off the cumulative rucking attributes of the players in the ruck, this would impact on how much intensity was required to win a ruck. Typically, more players = higher rucking value = lower intensity required/less chance of giving away penalties.
However, depending on how you use the ruck strategy options, you could end up with 5 backs in a ruck (having chosen nearest man and the ball was spun wide in the previous phase) up against 3 forwards (the defensive team sticking to the forward only rucking strategy and default for our new rucking aggression). In this instance, the 3 forwards would have a greater combined rucking value so less intensity would be required to win against the poorer rucking ability, but greater number, backs.
This would hopefully negate the previous issue of a team always adding the most players would win the ruck.

Now I'm not sure on the controls for RWC2011 and its strategies, so I may overlap in terms of button combinations with what is currently in place.

Basically what I would envisage would be a menu option based off the current FIFA11 model, where selecting UP on the d-pad brings up a quick sub-menu that lists 4 options (each associated with a direction on the d-pad).
The rucking agression options would be selected for example by pushing UP once to bring up the 3 options available, then pushing in 1 of 3 directions to choose your option.


Not perfect by any means but something to think about perhaps?

I like it and it's similar to what has been discussed.

No real incentive to ever select anything other than "Hold Back" as an option which leads to very negative and unbalanced gameplay. Not fun. More thought required though as it's one of the directions this new system could take us if it proves successful. Interested to hear your feedback once it's out.

 

[Rhyer]

Some people would like the realism, and the challenge. Our impression was that it becomes less fun

Meaning, **** you all, we want money and so are appealing to the mass market by naming it Rugby World Cup even though we have no licensed world cup stadia, no license of the hosts and a dumbed down experience so that the average Joe can buy into the hype of the world cup and purchase our product while slapping loyal supporters, who have purchased all your previous games, right in the face.

 

[HB_AJ]

No, meaning when given a design decision that chooses between realism and fun, we tend toward fun. We make games that we want people to enjoy playing for years to come.

Must be lost in translation.

One of the reasons we've participated in this community for a year and a half is so that members can understand more about what it takes to make a game and what the particular constraints and challenges are in making a Rugby game. The information is there so if you are interested to learn more, I invite you to read it.

As Mario has wisely said elsewhere, you are not obligated to buy either of our games. Furthermore, you have the opportunity to try our game before you buy it.