Warrior General Games

Uhm...I disagree. Rushing has a natural more diversity due to difference between out and unside runs. I agree with that.

Other than that, running is way more dependant on finding the right plays vs the right Defense as some Ds just leave some runs no chance. So you often end up with less than 5 Oitside runs you can use in a game. You dont have that problem as big with passing. So its easier to fill a passing playbook and hope for a good roll here and there.


What is so bad about my post above? Allowing us to chose the man coverage assignments is that bad?lol

At the end of the day we have to deal with whatever changes that might come.

Originally posted by peeti
Uhm...I disagree. Rushing has a natural more diversity due to difference between out and unside runs. I agree with that.

Other than that, running is way more dependant on finding the right plays vs the right Defense as some Ds just leave some runs no chance. So you often end up with less than 5 Oitside runs you can use in a game. You dont have that problem as big with passing. So its easier to fill a passing playbook and hope for a good roll here and there.


What is so bad about my post above? Allowing us to chose the man coverage assignments is that bad?lol

Maybe try some passes? Many of the outside run defenses are weak against the pass. I'm hoping spamming 10 different kinds of outside runs isn't considered diverse.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I'm hoping spamming 10 different kinds of outside runs isn't considered diverse.


Not really sure what being diverse is if 10 completely different plays from different formations isn't it.

The only other real designations are Outside, Inside, Short, Medium, Long.

Which if that were the case, Corndog's comment about 400 plays in the book would look pretty dumb.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
Maybe try some passes? Many of the outside run defenses are weak against the pass. I'm hoping spamming 10 different kinds of outside runs isn't considered diverse.




troll

Originally posted by bhall43
Anything for pass defense?

I hadn't planned on anything, but what did you have in mind in particular?

As far as what I have been working on, I'm fixing the problem where outside defenders don't play contain (don't let the ball get outside of you!) like they should when they read outside run. I makes things look more realistic and works to push plays toward the middle like a proper defense is supposed to, as opposed to just taking the shortest path to the ball and getting eaten up by blocks instantly all the time. Makes the outside run defense depend more on proper play calls than just hoping to break blocks, and gives Contain Expert more of a place.

Originally posted by Bort
I hadn't planned on anything, but what did you have in mind in particular?

As far as what I have been working on, I'm fixing the problem where outside defenders don't play contain (don't let the ball get outside of you!) like they should when they read outside run. I makes things look more realistic and works to push plays toward the middle like a proper defense is supposed to, as opposed to just taking the shortest path to the ball and getting eaten up by blocks instantly all the time. Makes the outside run defense depend more on proper play calls than just hoping to break blocks, and gives Contain Expert more of a place.

Again...let us choose double coverages ourselves. As you prolly dont know, your so called Smoother Plays dont double the intended receiver on most formations

Originally posted by Bort
I hadn't planned on anything, but what did you have in mind in particular?

As far as what I have been working on, I'm fixing the problem where outside defenders don't play contain (don't let the ball get outside of you!) like they should when they read outside run. I makes things look more realistic and works to push plays toward the middle like a proper defense is supposed to, as opposed to just taking the shortest path to the ball and getting eaten up by blocks instantly all the time. Makes the outside run defense depend more on proper play calls than just hoping to break blocks, and gives Contain Expert more of a place.

Hopefully that will fix some issues with the "contain" plays. Granted one thing that drives me nuts about some of the contains are that the first movement is generally towards their man coverage rather than blitzing to allow containment to happen.

As for the anything in mind. Part of the problem with coverage is that weak armed players have the ability to throw under coverage all day long. If there was an easy option of just being more or less aggressive underneath it would be neat. Nothing too crazy like GLB1 where its a bunch of different coverage options. Just something thats more 50/50 would be ok with me. An extra element of facing a weak arm QB who throws under all game and a strong armed QB who can beat you deep.

In line with the contain stuff, is it possible to look into ball carriers cutting inside? Because that seems like it will be a big issue if there is better containment (which I already think is decently easy as it is) and a ball carrier still making a b line for the sidelines no matter the containment in front of him.

Here is an example of an actual contain play making no sense.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/175634/1227703

CB2 is designed to blitz if there is no man assignment. But an assignment is useless to me. Because all it does is make him run away from what he is supposed to be containing.

Originally posted by bhall43
In line with the contain stuff, is it possible to look into ball carriers cutting inside? Because that seems like it will be a big issue if there is better containment (which I already think is decently easy as it is) and a ball carrier still making a b line for the sidelines no matter the containment in front of him.

From my recent testing, they tend to do that more now that there's more defenders out there containing them, as opposed to before when the open path was more often to the outside. But I could try weakening the outside waypoint strength a little earlier or something maybe if it's still an issue.

For the coverage stuff, would it be beneficial to try and work on bracketing? Generally under zone coverage and man coverage with shell help should play underneath the receiver more, but I don't think they do a very good job of that right now. That would probably help vs the noodle arm guys, if you could call more under zone plays and combo stuff against them to get more underneath coverage, while man coverage would be better against the strongarm dudes out there.

Originally posted by Bort
From my recent testing, they tend to do that more now that there's more defenders out there containing them, as opposed to before when the open path was more often to the outside. But I could try weakening the outside waypoint strength a little earlier or something maybe if it's still an issue.

For the coverage stuff, would it be beneficial to try and work on bracketing? Generally under zone coverage and man coverage with shell help should play underneath the receiver more, but I don't think they do a very good job of that right now. That would probably help vs the noodle arm guys, if you could call more under zone plays and combo stuff against them to get more underneath coverage, while man coverage would be better against the strongarm dudes out there.

Definitely more man coverage with under zones plz. I was actually really hoping for some of those plays to be introduced from the DPC contest last season.

Especially getting the safeties involved in under zones with man coverage over the top as that would give them some Zone abilities to make use of.

Originally posted by bhall43
Here is an example of an actual contain play making no sense.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/175634/1227703

CB2 is designed to blitz if there is no man assignment. But an assignment is useless to me. Because all it does is make him run away from what he is supposed to be containing.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been working on fixing. An outside coverage player should head outside or stay where he is, not head inside to meet up with the guy, which takes him out of the play and usually gets him blocked.

However, if a player is set to blitz to start the play, we do still want him to blitz, since otherwise there's no liability to blitzing. Contain logic should apply to outside coverage guys and safeties and such mostly.

Of course, it's still all contingent on making the proper read rolls.