Warrior General Games

Originally posted by tpaterniti
The answer is to make CBs with low strength and tackling as terrible at tackling as you'd think they should be. Then building INT CBs would represent an actual tradeoff. Right now there is very little risk because you can VA your way to solid tackling even with poor strength and tackling.

Best post in this thread

A lot of good stuff in this thread.

Originally posted by jtrav21
Best post in this thread

Except it's wrong. The difference between an INT CB and a "regular" CB in terms of strength and tackling is 10 strength. A well-built INT CB will have the same tackling, MT%, and base VAs as a regular CB, and will only have a loss of 10 strength (50 to 40). A poorly built INT CB should have trouble tackling, but that is because they are poorly built, not because they are an INT CB. As long as it's possible to build INT CBs with good tackling skills, reducing and INT CBs ability to tackle would kill off all CBs' ability to tackle. That would be terrible for the game.

Remove sure tackler and give a huge bonus to spin against DvsG. Helps elusives/WR's/TE's and gives terrible tackling builds something to think about.

Originally posted by bhall43
Remove sure tackler and give a bonus to spin against DvsG. Helps elusives/WR's/TE's and gives terrible tackling builds something to think about.

I could live with that

Originally posted by tpaterniti
The answer is to make CBs with low strength and tackling as terrible at tackling as you'd think they should be. Then building INT CBs would represent an actual tradeoff. Right now there is very little risk because you can VA your way to solid tackling even with poor strength and tackling.
Originally posted by bhall43
Remove sure tackler and give a huge bonus to spin against DvsG. Helps elusives/WR's/TE's and gives terrible tackling builds something to think about.


Both of those proposals would only encourage more rushing instead of passing.

Originally posted by jdbolick



Both of those proposals would only encourage more rushing instead of passing.

Yeah I'd like to see the base FF% a tad higher on defense as you only recover about half of the FF you cause anyway (not talking special teams). You also don't see nearly as many 20 strength WRs/TEs or scat HBs fumbling as much when a hhLB or SS built to FF hit them over the middle. Just seems like the risk of running Big I sweeps and short crossings is zero (rather than just "safer").

But even doing that would probably also require a toning down of the likelihood that 1 turnover causes more turnovers. If that weren't touched in some way, you'd probably see more of those stupid 10+ TO games.

Originally posted by SteveMax58
Yeah I'd like to see the base FF% a tad higher on defense as you only recover about half of the FF you cause anyway (not talking special teams). You also don't see nearly as many 20 strength WRs/TEs or scat HBs fumbling as much when a hhLB or SS built to FF hit them over the middle. Just seems like the risk of running Big I sweeps and short crossings is zero (rather than just "safer").

But even doing that would probably also require a toning down of the likelihood that 1 turnover causes more turnovers. If that weren't touched in some way, you'd probably see more of those stupid 10+ TO games.

http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2618856&pbp_id=2269494

Definitely dont recover enough FF's. If your team is build to force them, you will force them, but recovering them is a different ballgame. Can definitely see the more FF you have in 1 game, the more the morale spiral and it definitely leads to more

Originally posted by gbororats
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2618856&pbp_id=2269494

Definitely dont recover enough FF's. If your team is build to force them, you will force them, but recovering them is a different ballgame. Can definitely see the more FF you have in 1 game, the more the morale spiral and it definitely leads to more

Yeah, I'm sure it happens it just isn't nearly as common as an INT when a FF (not always a recovery) should be closer to even with INTs (to keep the game balanced...not to mention its more typical of real football at Pro or College levels).

The metagame would likely shift towards more passing, which would probably lead to more INTs as well I suppose but it just seems wrong that INTs are double the FF count when run/pass ratio slants much higher towards run these days.

Originally posted by jdbolick



Both of those proposals would only encourage more rushing instead of passing.

Not if wr's and te's start spinning.

Originally posted by bhall43
Not if wr's and te's start spinning.

Are WR's and TE's built with 97 agility and 12 in spinning, and 22.5 break tackle? Then no.

Originally posted by gbororats
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2618856&pbp_id=2269494

Definitely dont recover enough FF's. If your team is build to force them, you will force them, but recovering them is a different ballgame. Can definitely see the more FF you have in 1 game, the more the morale spiral and it definitely leads to more

Shit I'd be ecstatic if my team would recover 50%. 5 forced fumbles in this game and only 1 recovery which happened to be on STs. http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/game.pl?game_id=2621515

Originally posted by The Avenger
Are WR's and TE's built with 97 agility and 12 in spinning, and 22.5 break tackle? Then no.

actually I have seen a couple lately that where (and was shocked)

they don't spin though

Originally posted by The Avenger
Are WR's and TE's built with 97 agility and 12 in spinning, and 22.5 break tackle? Then no.

There are and they suck. But if they didn't suck, it would be great.