Warrior General Games

Could we have some plays where the TE and or FB and or HB are designed to stay in and block rather than run a route?

Yes please

if defenses blitzes enough and you have your audibles checked your QB can hold back Routerunners as blockers.

isn't that enough?

I've been begging for this across threads for weeks. It shouldn't be just based on blitzers - sometimes, on a deep pass, you call in the huddle for a back or TE to stick around and block as a max protect.

Originally posted by pottsman
I've been begging for this across threads for weeks. It shouldn't be just based on blitzers - sometimes, on a deep pass, you call in the huddle for a back or TE to stick around and block as a max protect.

Does the sim need this?

Almost certainly isn't going to happen as it allows you to always prevent a position from going on a route - so all of a sudden your FB or TE or whatever needs no catching at all, etc. They're trying to prevent that.

It would be nice if you could set a % chance of "please keep an extra blocker in" in some/all conditions, which should be less exploitable - you still can't control which position stays in but then you can say "my pass protect isn't very good vs this team and I want to try more blockers/less route runners against them".

Would still need something to prevent unchecking TE/HB and setting keep extra blocker on 100% to get the same effect I guess.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Almost certainly isn't going to happen as it allows you to always prevent a position from going on a route - so all of a sudden your FB or TE or whatever needs no catching at all, etc. They're trying to prevent that.


But in the current game, your FB or TE or whatever needs no pass blocking at all. Current sim holds guys in maybe once or twice in a game. I agree that there needs to be something to punish people building pure specialists, but the current way of doing it makes 3 traits absolutely meaningless and makes it harder to gameplan against heavy biltzing teams.

NiborRis

But as it stands now I can design my playbook so there are no FB runs so I can completely ignore rushing abilities for him. Or I can not sign any FB and add depth to other positions on my team.

How is this not the same?

Originally posted by Butler053
NiborRis

But as it stands now I can design my playbook so there are no FB runs so I can completely ignore rushing abilities for him. Or I can not sign any FB and add depth to other positions on my team.

How is this not the same?


Exactly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Having everyone go out for a pass every play was a poor game design decision.
Was glb1 like this with always having 5 routes on every play?

Originally posted by underdog13

Exactly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Having everyone go out for a pass every play was a poor game design decision.
Was glb1 like this with always having 5 routes on every play?

this isn't glb1, and you will forever be disappointed until you realize this isn't glb1.

Originally posted by underdog13

Exactly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Having everyone go out for a pass every play was a poor game design decision.
Was glb1 like this with always having 5 routes on every play?

Until a few seasons ago there were many plays in GLB1 that didn't have routes for the HB, FB, or TE. Just before the release of GLB2 that was "fixed".

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
this isn't glb1, and you will forever be disappointed until you realize this isn't glb1.

Well I never really like glb1 that much way to complicated

Originally posted by underdog13
Well I never really like glb1 that much way to complicated

this game is complicated as well once you dive in.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
this game is complicated as well once you dive in.

but good complicated not stupid complicated

Originally posted by underdog13
but good complicated not stupid complicated

no id say stupid complicated.