Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Staz
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.

This would be great to see, especially with the larger sizes archetypes will be bringing into play.

Originally posted by staz
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.

Sometimes it seems like the dots don't take up any space at all. I swear I've seen the TE run between the LT and DE to hit the LB while the LT and DE are engaged in a block.

The D-line has an advantage up the middle because (amongst other reasons) the defense can substitute a run stopping NT in on obvious running situations and can sub in a pass rushing NT in obvious passing situations.

Because the O-line cannot call for substitutions based on running or passing, they are at a bit of a disadvantage because they have to build to do both.

Because the pass rush was so over-powered the last two seasons (the most so since the DE nerf), many offenses were forced to switch their O-line focus to pass rush in order to try and get the ball away before the sack/hurry.

Since the offense needs to be built with balance in mind (even if they perhaps lean to one side or the other), they are at an inherrent disadvantage when faced with an unbalanced build.

Perhaps one suggestion would be to give the QB the ability to call an actual Audible... IRL when a good QB reads the defense, he changes the play on the fly using the same personnel currently on the field, hopefully understanding the defense's play call.

A good audible can change the route of a WR to a short route... in some cases a running play or screen can be called when the QB feels that he can exploit it.

Obviously GLB is still very far away from offering a full audible system, and I haven't been happy with the blocker audible system, so I don't know what to expect out of this...

I guess I'm just trying to show that nerfing builds isn't maybe the only way to fix problems with the sim that run deeper than it would appear on the surface.

That isn't why though. You ever seen how most G's and C's are built?

Originally posted by Staz
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:

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 . T



That's how it should be done. A lot of people reduce the weakside, and that should be a 4i all the way with a loose 9 compliment to spill.

You seem to know enough that you might be familiar with "spill it and kill it", and that's just dealing with traps and offensive line movement, which is now relevant with the VA that was introduced.

If you wanna' do stunts, then you may wanna' ask those that know what can be done there. I used to run a defense that had up to angle 20. That's 40+ combinations of defensive line movement, and 1 thing that looks downright potentially abusive on here is an iso nose game.

You run that, you can have any 3 man strongside pitch a tent in the backfield.

Oh, I almost forgot about the really important stuff -

How would fire zones be managed? Someone mentioned finding a balance between zone and man and find an applicable situation.

If you did that, you'd be able to create Panther cross blitzes, bronco fire zones - things like this would really create a problem.

I would love to have more tactical options on here, but to do what you want done, you'd really have to hammer out the offensive line matchup problems 1st.

Another reason your seeing LB's further away from the Line of Scrimmage is to keep them from being engaged by to O-line. If you have them back further you can create double teams and gaps for the LB's

Originally posted by Pietasters
Another reason your seeing LB's further away from the Line of Scrimmage is to keep them from being engaged by to O-line. If you have them back further you can create double teams and gaps for the LB's

Yes, setting your LB's a bit back from the line is a huge boon to stopping the run, counter-intuitively. Especially when you have the sorts of builds that GLB has encouraged for LB's... EG, lots of speed and vision, and don;t worry about strength because of DvG.

LB's being better against the run in 'pass' mode (further off the line) has been an issue since before SYM was implemented.

I do agree though that SYM has its issues as well and I believe they are being addressed.

Right now though I see a huge part of the problem for Offenses and the passing game is just how freaking fast defenses can be. Zone Specialist, Ball Hawk and 120+ speeds for Linebackers combined with DvG to ensure you can still tackle power backs with 60 strength is a bit too much.

Thread locked by moderator.