User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > 2 BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THE GLB SIM
Page:
 
El Kabong
gwar slash
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Dr. E
I doubt fewer interceptions would result in much of a change, at least to the overall completion %. So long as it didn't result in a lot more completed long passes anyhow. What I would encourage is a boost to pass quality based on the distance of the pass. Higher pass quality would result in lower number of interceptions.


But it gives the offense another edge, and that's what I want avoided.

Originally posted by bhall43
Scaling the INT's into more deflections makes no sense because the only reason people are getting so many more INT's is Catching and INT% which neither have anything whatsoever to do with deflecting the ball.


I thought deflections were part of the INT chance. As in you have to pass a deflection chance first. So just scale down catching/INT scores just slightly, so instead of having the top WL dots in the INT category all being in double-digits, maybe only a few are. Basically just a very, very small scale back so that if you get 14 in a season, instead you'd get 10-11.

But like I said, if it stays as it is with INTs, I'm ok with it simply because D gets nerfed everywhere else.
 
bhall43
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by El Kabong
I thought deflections were part of the INT chance. As in you have to pass a deflection chance first. So just scale down catching/INT scores just slightly, so instead of having the top WL dots in the INT category all being in double-digits, maybe only a few are. Basically just a very, very small scale back so that if you get 14 in a season, instead you'd get 10-11.

But like I said, if it stays as it is with INTs, I'm ok with it simply because D gets nerfed everywhere else.


They aren't deflecting though. They are just going straight for the INT. It is aggressive coverage and guys with 60+ Catching and INT%.
 
JT_HOOD
HOOD
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by MadMustaff
it's so unfair when entire 40 strength int secondaries get pancaked. defenses shouldn't have to invest in run stoppers at all imo. nerf the run and let's roll with all pass rushers and pick masters and encourage lazy DC's to get it done with minimal effort as possible. roster personnel and tagging shouldn't count for shit. word.


now you're talking. I don't want to do anything ever, this would really help my cause
 
MadMustaff
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by JT_HOOD
now you're talking. I don't want to do anything ever, this would really help my cause



 
jdbolick
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by .spider.
You are very VERY wrong on #1, I've used TE at WR on Richey a couple times this season, I've seen plays w/ multiple pancakes

Against Honolulu your blocking TEs had 58 snaps at WR and only had 3 pancakes. Against VOLGOGRAD your blocking TEs did get 14 pancakes in 52 snaps at WR, but their CBs get pancaked a lot so it's likely that they're extremely low strength. Because of rounding it's hard to tell exactly, but based on the speed script the penalty for a TE at WR is definitely at least 10% and probably 15%. I guess Bort could include the ability to select WR tags in the DAI, but I doubt many DCs would bother with it. It's just not that big of an issue.
 
Dpride59
offline
Link
 
I always loved exploits that involved a non field general playing qb -is it no longer possible to tag qbs? A wr playing qb is unable to be stopped? Loll regular season - if a dc does something and is playing vs a wr playing qb it's going to be insta loss of yards
 
blitz39
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Dpride59
I always loved exploits that involved a non field general playing qb -is it no longer possible to tag qbs? A wr playing qb is unable to be stopped? Loll regular season - if a dc does something and is playing vs a wr playing qb it's going to be insta loss of yards


they could play TE too, so if you tag him as a receiver.... there would be no difference, would probably wind up with lighter dots on the field. Could tag as custom1 or something though
 
bhall43
offline
Link
 
You guys are worried about all the wrong things IMO.
 
Team Nucleus
Draft Man
offline
Link
 
Nada to worry about...it's just a game they say

 
aaasahi
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by bhall43
You guys are worried about all the wrong things IMO.


So what is the right thing?
 
Dr. E
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by RyanCane26
So the short TE passes can be 100% effective instead of just 85%


I think that if short passes to TE were 85% effective, we would see a lot more short passing to TE and the end to the days of seeing 30 screens a game or 40 sweeps. But one thing is for sure, if short passing to TE was possible, then we wouldn't be talking about INT being to frequent.
 
El Kabong
gwar slash
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by bhall43
They aren't deflecting though. They are just going straight for the INT. It is aggressive coverage and guys with 60+ Catching and INT%.


I thought that even in that case they had to pass a deflection check first. Guess not. I say just leave it as is then unless the DPC get opened up.
Edited by El Kabong on Jun 6, 2014 08:28:11
 
DiMo28
offline
Link
 
I agree with Wiseman's original premise that there isn't enough of a penalty to CB's (or anyone covering) who are aggressive. I don't mind the INT's. I hate that they can go for the pick and get an insta-tackle. There should be a big penalty to tackling if they are trying to do something else... even a deflect attempt should have a penalty.
 
Team Nucleus
Draft Man
offline
Link
 
Biggest 2 problems with GLB.....
#1 pushing away your loyal GLBers with arrogant replies and comments...
#2 colluding with the wrong people that only wanted to destroy the game and giving up on your pinnacle version of the game GLB Classic.

You done goofed up big time....tho it's not to late to back peddle
 
DarkRogue
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Dr. E
I think that if short passes to TE were 85% effective, we would see a lot more short passing to TE and the end to the days of seeing 30 screens a game or 40 sweeps. But one thing is for sure, if short passing to TE was possible, then we wouldn't be talking about INT being to frequent.


 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.