Warrior General Games

Also broken into it's own thread - (sorry - this is a massive wall of text)

Originally posted by Catch22
I'm not 100% this is an issue that needs a lot of work. Only the uber good teams are able to over power the run game and we can't try and balance the game around just 4-5 times. But with that being said, I want to collect thoughts on this. Is it something we need to fix? If so, what do you think would help balance it more?

Thread is currently 51 posts - so summarized below:

Assorted quotes from different testers:
-Running seems to be good for most all levels of play except the 'Uber' teams who have ample farm systems and the ability to ensure their players are all built in sync with the proper builds.

Where this may be an issue is inevitably it does 'fall out' and gets distributed across the ranks so that it becomes a more widespread problem. So addressing it before it becomes one is likely a good idea.

-I think I'd like to see more line push still (both offensively and defensively). Likewise more a 'line is clogged can't run through it have to go around or take what's given' type effect. I hate seeing RBs burst through a wall of 5+ defenders while running up through say the B gap.

Now, the issue with the run game where it's completely shutdown isn't really the D-Line, imo....(it's) LB reactions and acceleration need adjusting.

PP - As I said before, my main concern is that the better running PL teams can run very effectively, maybe too effectively. I'm not sure how you make it so that two good teams can run against each other, but the teams currently successful at running don't end up putting up 5000000 yds a game after the change.

Catch22 - Yea, that's my main concern too. I'm thinking the AEQ change might help balance it a bit too. i also think we might want to evaluate DvG.

PP - If we toned down DvG, it'd increase the importance of tkling, which would be an indirect incentive not to go so hard into speed. so, that may help a little.

Catch - was on my list of recommendations to Bort. I'll push it harder lol.

Bort - What do you want to set it to?

Catch - half effectiveness - 1.5% per level (which is still +22.5% maxed out). Seeing 70 strength, 120 speed LB'ers never miss tackles has told most people that DvG is a must have. +45% is pretty powerful especially since you know all you need to do to make it activate is to be weaker then the players you are tackling (thus encouraging low strength).

Tester - I think we just need to sit down, review different styles of run blocking schemes, and try to add those into the game. I'm sure we can figure out a way to get zone blocking to work, and get some needed changes to man blocking (C making adjustments to who is blocking who based on defensive alignment, players calling blitzes, etc.)

Tester - I think you need to be really careful with this if you aren't going to also tone down SYM. I'll agree that DvG might be too powerful at/past the LOS, but any dot that gets penetration needs DvG to have a shot at taking a RB down behind the LOS.

Bort - Sounds like SYM is too good.

Catch - It is - that'd be another one I nerf tbh.

Tester - Most teams play a passive defense to allow the RB to get to the LOS before they attempt a tackle and have for several seasons....and SYM is the primary reason I would assume.

Tester - Yeah, SYM absolutely kills the secondary when they meet in the backfield on outside runs where the WR fails to make the block.

Bort - Ok, so dvg/sym chopped in half?

Tester - To be honest, I don't even like SYM in general. SYM in real life = Bruiser. Somebody able to churn out yards in short distance situations.

Bort - Meh, it's different. To me, it's for somebody who gets themselves gathered right as they get the handoff.

Tester - I listed it in the other thread Bort, but I feel that SYM should also be restricted to runs inside the tackles. It tends to eat up outside defenders way too often. With my OC hat on, I don't even fear a CB on the outside if I want to run a pitch that way. I know the powerback can break the tackle 9 times out of 10 in the sim.

Bort - True, outside runs aren't really supposed to be power rushes.

Catch - Yep, inside the tackles would be a fine nerf to SYM imo.

Tester - Pretty much. I see power backs going for ten or fifteen yards on pitch plays against defenses that stop the speed back cold because the power back just runs them over. I tend to think the limiting of % AEQ stacks will solve a lot of it though.

Tester - I agree and I think it's a fun VA that doesn't need to go away necessarily. Lots of teams have built their defenses around the VA and just set themselves up so it never comes into play. For any team that wants to play an aggressive defense though it is a major issue that needs to be dealt with.

If SYM were to stay the same and DvG get nerfed, I would argue for a new VA that specifically helps with tackles in the backfield. If both SYM and DvG get nerfed I think it would work out ok.

Bort - Both chopped and inside, or just inside? If D can't take down a guy behind the line EVER it's too powerful.

Catch - try just inside with maybe a 25% reduction (+3%) instead of 50%

Tester - I can see that, but I don't see a whole lot of broken tackles behind the line, really. Ball carriers generally don't have much momentum until they get to the LOS. Plus, if a RB is slowing down, looking for the hole and gets hit...he should go down. Now, if the guy is going full bore and what not, I could see it helping, but I just don't see this as a real ability, but rather something situational.

My vote would be to get rid of SYM, because doesn't bruiser work behind the LOS?

Bort - I could see a "Backfield Mauler" VA or something, though: increase tackle % or power in the backfield.

Tester - Even with it chopped in half it's still a +30% chance (2% per level in SYM), that should be plenty. Don't think we'd be overnerfing it.

Tester - My thought has always been to adjust the existing Power Tackler VA to also include a tackle % bonus in the backfield.

Bort - That's a decent call. Maybe set up a test with that and dvg nerfed and see how it works in comparison?

Catch - Yep, could do that.

Bort - Uploaded. Also added 2% bonus for power tackler behind the line.

Catch - ok try this one (when it's done simming)

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1956

Tester - About time DvG was nerfed. I always though it was really counterintuitive. You get a huge bonus to something ONLY when your player is NOT built to properly perform that action.

Tester - Eliminating SYM outside the tackles will pretty much kill the outside running game for a lot of teams. I know SYM wasn't designed to be a crutch for outside running, but like it or not, that is the state of things.

That being said I've been pushing for nerfs to DvG and SYM for around 3 months now, so I'm glad this is getting addressed.

Some random thoughts...

-50% might be a bit much for both VAs
-I think DvG has become sort of a scapegoat for deeper LB balance problems and this change won't solve as much as some think
-despite the above point, both these VAs are very important to run balance currently so a change this large should be very thoroughly tested
-I don't see anyone saying otherwise, but it's worth a reminder: the problems with the running game at the top has much more to do with the Dline than it does with LBs

Catch - I have my own opinions but what do you think specifically is why the problems are with the Dline more than LB'ers - what things need addressing in other words? Explain please (why you think LB balance is off)

Tester - In short, reverse pancakes are too common and good D-lines are very hard to push back.

If you watch my run defense you'll see a lot of plays like this: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1079739&pbp_id=14387197 . The LB makes the play here, but the NT takes 3 blockers and actually moves them backwards. The D-line enable the LBs' success.

DvG is just one part of the equation. Even if this DvG nerf doubles the number of tackles my LBs miss (which is very generous), they will go from missing 5% of their tackles to 10%. It's a step in the right direction but it's not gonna change a lot.

Catch - Agree with the rev pancake thing - was a big reason for the Balance SA tbh. Still probably needs some adjustments in that area though as far as frequency with which they occur. It shouldn't be possible for one DL to take on three players like that and succeed. It's silly tbh.

What other things besides the change in DvG do you think is part of the equation? I think making morale/energy matter more will impact that some as well but am interested in your thoughts.

Tester - I don't think there's an easy answer. There are a lot of things factoring in, and it is tough to isolate them... maybe tackling and strength are too effective around the 3rd cap? Maybe wrap-up tackling is too effective? Maybe agility and vision help tackling too much? Maybe player speed/momentum is included in the tackling equation to an unfair degree? Maybe make tackle % gear has too large an effect? Adjusting any of these things will have negative consequences.

Tester - point on the D-line issue is on target...a great nose tackle removes 3 blockers from the equation and can either make the play himself or let the LBs clean it up.

I really tire of the SYM argument, and I really think we need to see the effects of nerfing % gear before we jump on nerfing a VA that *only* fires behind the LOS.

Fact of inside running game- It is *only* worthwhile because it stands little chance of taking a loss. A good run defense is not going to give you more than 3.5 yards, and will often stop you at 2 yards.

For that extremely limited upside, they payoff is that you won't be going backwards very often. You can grind out 6 yards on two plays to set up a makeable 3rd and 4, which allows quite a variety of passing plays, or you can occassionally grind out 3 runs for 10 yards.

Start throwing a few more TFLs into the equaltion and inside running will simply not be a part of the game.

As noted, outside running depends almost exclusively on the SYM VA...I am not sure that I have seen any elusive back who can run outside at top levels of the game without needing to break tackles in the backfield to have a shot.


SYM is currently a crutch for a somewhat broken running game. Remove that crutch and it might just fall the hell over. Are we ready to take that on?

Steve, Catch posted somewhere that you can/should leave the testers names in...It will save you some time and take the testers out of the shadows a little

P.S. feel free to verify it with him, but I'm 99.9% sure on this one

Originally posted by PP
Steve, Catch posted somewhere that you can/should leave the testers names in...It will save you some time and take the testers out of the shadows a little

P.S. feel free to verify it with him, but I'm 99.9% sure on this one

Certainly welcome to use my name, regardless.

thanks guys - ya - life would be quite a bit easier to quote people (using normal /quote functions of the forums) - and I saw Catch post that - but just wanted him to clarify before I actually did it.


Certainly don't want any testers upset that their opinions were outed....thought it best to just wait for confirmation

yep, use their names. There should be no transparency. Testers know they are there to help the GLB community so there is no reason for their name not to be published.

Got it.


(also - think you meant there should be transparency (you accidentally but a no in)

We should get a list of testers and have a flex contest with the winner being the first person to guess the most testers correctly.

Originally posted by Catch22
There should be no transparency.

wat

Since powerbacks get Bruiser and SYM, shouldn't elusives/combos get a +fake behind the LoS? If you're taking away SYM from outside the tackles, there's a far greater chance an elusive or combo back will be brought down.

You're shortening the crutch for one type of back, and kicking it out from two others.

Reducing rev pancakes will not eliminate the D-line being OP'd in the running game but it is the first step that should be taken imo.

Also the people arguing that SYM is needed in the sim because you can't run without it are not realizing that the idea is to make the running game manageable next season, so that it won't be the case. SYM causes defenses in almost all leagues to play more conservative than they should, and the fact that it is what gets the outside running game going is a problem that has to be addressed..it shouldn't be excepted that this is the case and left because tinkering with it would offset the balance without adjusting other things at the same time like better O/D line interaction, which would also effect WR's blocking CB's, allowing for FB's/TE's to make better blocks as well. Outside runs should have a high risk to them, not the current situation in which a power back breaks 1-2 tackles in the backfield at a very high rate and then is off for 10+ yards before anyone else can touch him. That, and power backs being more successful than speed backs on outside rushes also should not be the case, getting rid of SYM for the outside runs would be a step towards accomplishing that.

SYM should be nerfed due to powerbacks abusing it, but elusive/speed HB's should get something to help them burn those little CB's that stuff them in their tracks.

That's what I got out of the wall.

Originally posted by Tester
Tester - point on the D-line issue is on target...a great nose tackle removes 3 blockers from the equation and can either make the play himself or let the LBs clean it up.

I really tire of the SYM argument, and I really think we need to see the effects of nerfing % gear before we jump on nerfing a VA that *only* fires behind the LOS.

Fact of inside running game- It is *only* worthwhile because it stands little chance of taking a loss. A good run defense is not going to give you more than 3.5 yards, and will often stop you at 2 yards.

For that extremely limited upside, they payoff is that you won't be going backwards very often. You can grind out 6 yards on two plays to set up a makeable 3rd and 4, which allows quite a variety of passing plays, or you can occassionally grind out 3 runs for 10 yards.

Start throwing a few more TFLs into the equaltion and inside running will simply not be a part of the game.

As noted, outside running depends almost exclusively on the SYM VA...I am not sure that I have seen any elusive back who can run outside at top levels of the game without needing to break tackles in the backfield to have a shot.


SYM is currently a crutch for a somewhat broken running game. Remove that crutch and it might just fall the hell over. Are we ready to take that on?


Whoever said this is dead on. This is someone who gets it. Well done

I agree that the top level DL are killing the top level OL in the run game. I think that is the primary issue, as real teams run the ball effectively with good blocking, not with zillions of broken tackles. Correct blocking interactions come first, IMO.

I also agree with the comment that LBs and safeties are reacting very fast to the run compared to how fast the handoff develops and how fast the HBs accelerate.

Count me in the crowd that doesn't like the way SYM works. It's flat-out dopey that defenses are holding their LBs back to intentionally not make contact until beyond the line of scrimmage.
Leroy Hoard said, "Coach, if you need one yard, I'll get you three yards; If you need five yards, I'll get you three yards." He didn't say, "Coach, if you need 0.5 yards, I'll get you one yard. If you need two yards, I'll get you one yard."
SYM should not give as huge of a bonus as it does, but it should work until at least 1 yard past the line of scrimmage. I do also like the suggestion of only making it work inside. Makes sense, especially if Bort envisioned it as something for right after the handoff.

If DVG is reduced and SYM extended beyond the LOS, I think Bruiser could both be toned down. Make Bruiser 2% like Slippery, but get rid of the 8 yard limit on Bruiser, so that it is still distinct from SYM. Granted, it would then have the same effect as Slippery, but it would obviously be used by different types of players than Slippery would. I'm sure many tears would be shed if Bruiser was nerfed, but think about it: It makes sense for power backs to get both Bruiser and SYM, but it doesn't make sense to have VAs that combine for anything close to +105% break tackle chance, or even 70-80% IMO. I feel that broken tackles rely too much on +% chance VAs and EQ instead of builds.

Originally posted by David Stern
Originally posted by Tester

Tester - point on the D-line issue is on target...a great nose tackle removes 3 blockers from the equation and can either make the play himself or let the LBs clean it up.

I really tire of the SYM argument, and I really think we need to see the effects of nerfing % gear before we jump on nerfing a VA that *only* fires behind the LOS.

Fact of inside running game- It is *only* worthwhile because it stands little chance of taking a loss. A good run defense is not going to give you more than 3.5 yards, and will often stop you at 2 yards.

For that extremely limited upside, they payoff is that you won't be going backwards very often. You can grind out 6 yards on two plays to set up a makeable 3rd and 4, which allows quite a variety of passing plays, or you can occassionally grind out 3 runs for 10 yards.

Start throwing a few more TFLs into the equaltion and inside running will simply not be a part of the game.

As noted, outside running depends almost exclusively on the SYM VA...I am not sure that I have seen any elusive back who can run outside at top levels of the game without needing to break tackles in the backfield to have a shot.


SYM is currently a crutch for a somewhat broken running game. Remove that crutch and it might just fall the hell over. Are we ready to take that on?


Whoever said this is dead on. This is someone who gets it. Well done

Whoever said that was what most of my post above this one addressed. Looking at how it is now and not how it ought to be is wrong. This post shows a lot of what is happening in this sim, but has absolutely no foresight in how you can nerf SYM and still boost the running game, both inside and outside.

I posted this in the test server within the last hour, so I thought I'd bring it out to you guys. What'dya think of these ideas?

Originally posted by Staz
Things I'd like to see:

1. Defenders recognizing which gap the OL is attempting to open, and making an effort to either resist being moved out of there (I'm under the impression they currently try to drive the OL backwards, or shed their block instead of just trying to move the OL left and right) or to actually try and move the offensive lineman into the gap/into the backfield.

2. DPC Options - If we were to add some DPC options (Crash Left, Crash Right, Stunt, Gap Blitz Assignments, etc.) we could begin to limit the movement on players in the DPC.

-We could only allow the DL to shift left, shift right, spread, or pinch instead of being able to individually place dots wherever we can. Or, we could also give them technique assignments: http://football.calsci.com/Positions8.html . This would be a drop down to the left of the assignment: [Alignment] [Assignment]---->[Extra]. The extra here would be where the man coverage assignment, zone assignment or GAP ASSIGNMENT would be.

- At the bottom of the DPC, or at the top, above the positions but below the image, you could have "Defensive Line Alignment: [Here] with the options of shift strong, shift weak, spread, pinch, default, and "Line Backer Alignment" showing the same thing.

With those options, and gap blitzing assignments, I think we could easily "restrict" players a little more, not allowing random placement, and impacting exploit blitzes. I could see this being possible for LBs, too, and MAYBE the secondary players, but those last two would be a little more complicated.

3. Bigger players taking up more space. I'm under the impression that every dot, regardless of weight, takes up the same amount of space on the field. The dots are the same size, and the players react as if they're the same size. However, I don't think this should be. It's obvious that your 300lb DT is wider than your 190lb WR, and takes up a lot more space. This should be reflected in the sim. Then, having a huge defensive front with big, large players, would "plug" a little more of the gaps, and in turn, the OL would also take up more space, making the area between the tackles a little more "packed" and a little tougher to just fly around through. This would make LBs flying in for TFLs a little tougher, as well as make runners possibly have to alter course or slow down a LOT more going through a packed line.