so besides snow, what else do we think they are going to tweak/add?
Edited by MadCow420 on May 2, 2016 12:35:01
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > season 17 Sim Update
MadCow420
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Buff zone.
It was sad to see GoZ close up shop. I thought they did fine their first season in Vet.
I think Passing could use some tweaks, Not really a buff, just some tweaks. I just wish everyone didn't run the same plays. I wish builds had more of an impact on what kinda of plays teams run.
Buff zone.
It was sad to see GoZ close up shop. I thought they did fine their first season in Vet.
I think Passing could use some tweaks, Not really a buff, just some tweaks. I just wish everyone didn't run the same plays. I wish builds had more of an impact on what kinda of plays teams run.
Absolut Zero
offline
offline
More plays. Some formations are criminally underused, Diamond and Singleback Spread. They both need more rushing and passing plays.
For defense, we need man coverage plays with, instead of a Robber, an offset zone to various sides to help out against Counters.
DL Bunch/shift plays. If all a team does is Slam/Offtackle to the strongside, I want play options to shift the d-line over.
Edit: Also, adjusting the SP cost of Kicker skills.
For defense, we need man coverage plays with, instead of a Robber, an offset zone to various sides to help out against Counters.
DL Bunch/shift plays. If all a team does is Slam/Offtackle to the strongside, I want play options to shift the d-line over.
Edit: Also, adjusting the SP cost of Kicker skills.
Edited by Absolut Zero on Mar 21, 2016 11:49:59
Originally posted by Absolut Zero
More plays. Some formations are criminally underused, Diamond and Singleback Spread. They both need more rushing and passing plays. +1
For defense, we need man coverage plays with, instead of a Robber, an offset zone to various sides to help out against Counters. +1
DL Bunch/shift plays. If all a team does is Slam/Offtackle to the strongside, I want play options to shift the d-line over. +1
Edit: Also, adjusting the SP cost of Kicker skills. +1
More plays. Some formations are criminally underused, Diamond and Singleback Spread. They both need more rushing and passing plays. +1
For defense, we need man coverage plays with, instead of a Robber, an offset zone to various sides to help out against Counters. +1
DL Bunch/shift plays. If all a team does is Slam/Offtackle to the strongside, I want play options to shift the d-line over. +1
Edit: Also, adjusting the SP cost of Kicker skills. +1
BoDiddley
offline
offline
4th down tactics need to be added for late game situations badly. Nothing worse than going for a FG down by 7 on the opp 20, with 3 mins left. Onside kicks should be added too under 5 mins left, but that's probably wishful thinking
More Special Abilities should be added/or tweeked, particularly for the QB position. GLB1 has Laser Arm and it would be nice to have a SA that makes catches in traffic better, for example(Pass Tech + Acc powered). Hail Mary shouldn't be for late game situations, but instead for any long throw. For Kickers....Chip Shot needs to be buffed to cover more distance on kicks(bronze-20 yds, silver-30 yds, gold-40 yds). DBs need an interception SA especially considering the cost of SP.
Would love to be able to change the checkdown order for receivers like in GLB1 too.
More Special Abilities should be added/or tweeked, particularly for the QB position. GLB1 has Laser Arm and it would be nice to have a SA that makes catches in traffic better, for example(Pass Tech + Acc powered). Hail Mary shouldn't be for late game situations, but instead for any long throw. For Kickers....Chip Shot needs to be buffed to cover more distance on kicks(bronze-20 yds, silver-30 yds, gold-40 yds). DBs need an interception SA especially considering the cost of SP.
Would love to be able to change the checkdown order for receivers like in GLB1 too.
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
DBs do have an INT SA...it's Eyes on the Prize.
It's not only in zone coverage, it has to be underneath zone coverage. We need a man INT SA.
DBs do have an INT SA...it's Eyes on the Prize.
It's not only in zone coverage, it has to be underneath zone coverage. We need a man INT SA.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by BoDiddley
Would love to be able to change the checkdown order for receivers like in GLB1 too.
wont happen because that would mean a complete overhaul into an advanced DAI which is something they don't want to do here.
Would love to be able to change the checkdown order for receivers like in GLB1 too.
wont happen because that would mean a complete overhaul into an advanced DAI which is something they don't want to do here.
Originally posted by bhall43
wont happen because that would mean a complete overhaul into an advanced DAI which is something they don't want to do here.
As a compromise, they could duplicate the play, but have a different checkdown order. A bit of choice as to who the primary target is would be nice.
doobas™
wont happen because that would mean a complete overhaul into an advanced DAI which is something they don't want to do here.
As a compromise, they could duplicate the play, but have a different checkdown order. A bit of choice as to who the primary target is would be nice.
doobas™
Originally posted by bhall43
wont happen because that would mean a complete overhaul into an advanced DAI which is something they don't want to do here.
Would changing progressions make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? As long as the progressions were tied to the play and not the playbook slot I could see it working out ok.
Let defenses tag defensive plays as short/medium/long (at a play level) and let offenses set progressions (at a play level). That could go a long way to improving the playbook.
wont happen because that would mean a complete overhaul into an advanced DAI which is something they don't want to do here.
Would changing progressions make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? As long as the progressions were tied to the play and not the playbook slot I could see it working out ok.
Let defenses tag defensive plays as short/medium/long (at a play level) and let offenses set progressions (at a play level). That could go a long way to improving the playbook.
Duro
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Would changing progressions make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? As long as the progressions were tied to the play and not the playbook slot I could see it working out ok.
Let defenses tag defensive plays as short/medium/long (at a play level) and let offenses set progressions (at a play level). That could go a long way to improving the playbook.
definitely would unless it made you put all 5 targets into the boxes. zones would be completely useless if you could change the progressions to target specific players.
Would changing progressions make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? As long as the progressions were tied to the play and not the playbook slot I could see it working out ok.
Let defenses tag defensive plays as short/medium/long (at a play level) and let offenses set progressions (at a play level). That could go a long way to improving the playbook.
definitely would unless it made you put all 5 targets into the boxes. zones would be completely useless if you could change the progressions to target specific players.
bhall43
offline
offline
yup, honestly best case scenario i think if they just give us an option to change the primary target of the play which would then change the play somewhat differently with each position you target.
Sov.
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
yup, honestly best case scenario i think if they just give us an option to change the primary target of the play which would then change the play somewhat differently with each position you target.
yeah this has been my thoughts for a while, keep the same plays but let us change the progressions. could make tons of plays usable with one adjustment
yup, honestly best case scenario i think if they just give us an option to change the primary target of the play which would then change the play somewhat differently with each position you target.
yeah this has been my thoughts for a while, keep the same plays but let us change the progressions. could make tons of plays usable with one adjustment
MileHighShoes
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Would changing progressions make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? As long as the progressions were tied to the play and not the playbook slot I could see it working out ok.
Let defenses tag defensive plays as short/medium/long (at a play level) and let offenses set progressions (at a play level). That could go a long way to improving the playbook.
Changing the progressions in GLB1 made a WORLD of difference in what we could do on offense. I'm sure it would make massive changes here too.
Would changing progressions make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? As long as the progressions were tied to the play and not the playbook slot I could see it working out ok.
Let defenses tag defensive plays as short/medium/long (at a play level) and let offenses set progressions (at a play level). That could go a long way to improving the playbook.
Changing the progressions in GLB1 made a WORLD of difference in what we could do on offense. I'm sure it would make massive changes here too.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
