I don't know if that's entirely true. Plenty of teams have lit up CRL's zone this season...and every other season, too. 
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > S57 Changelog Requests - and some State of the Game stuff after it
ellix
offline
offline
I want to raise the spectre of this once again. Remove the account limit for superstars. It does not make sense at this stage of the game.
Futhermore, cloned superstars should not count against the superstar count of the cloner. I'm already being penalized with a flex cost I didn't anticipate, I don't need to lose out on my own superstars because I was forced to clone someone.
Futhermore, cloned superstars should not count against the superstar count of the cloner. I'm already being penalized with a flex cost I didn't anticipate, I don't need to lose out on my own superstars because I was forced to clone someone.
Originally posted by Kayoh
it would be pretty nice if the head fake and pump fake SAs actually did something. As it stands right now there's really no way to get your receivers actually open in any consistent way so the entire meta is just trying to win catch rolls on contested catches, so it'd be really nice if a pump fake QB paired with a bunch of really good route running WRs with head fake would actually be a viable offensive combination. Sadly it's just not.
I mean, maybe?
Then people would be complaining about their defenders just standing there while the receiver catches the ball. And more weight would need to be put on receivers dropping passes when wide open, but people really hate that.
At least contested catches feel fair. You're losing a roll against another player rather than losing a roll against the game.
it would be pretty nice if the head fake and pump fake SAs actually did something. As it stands right now there's really no way to get your receivers actually open in any consistent way so the entire meta is just trying to win catch rolls on contested catches, so it'd be really nice if a pump fake QB paired with a bunch of really good route running WRs with head fake would actually be a viable offensive combination. Sadly it's just not.
I mean, maybe?
Then people would be complaining about their defenders just standing there while the receiver catches the ball. And more weight would need to be put on receivers dropping passes when wide open, but people really hate that.
At least contested catches feel fair. You're losing a roll against another player rather than losing a roll against the game.
Like, look at it like this,
A) Receivers can consistently get open
B) Receivers can consistently catch open passes
If both of those are true, then passing is effectively unstoppable. If A is true but B is false, defense no longer matters and it's just receivers dropping balls all the time, which feels bad. A being false and B being true is really only option left.
A) Receivers can consistently get open
B) Receivers can consistently catch open passes
If both of those are true, then passing is effectively unstoppable. If A is true but B is false, defense no longer matters and it's just receivers dropping balls all the time, which feels bad. A being false and B being true is really only option left.
Edited by Corndog on Dec 6, 2021 07:30:09
Xars
offline
offline
Originally posted by william78
Point is Xars did a really job illustrating both here and some of his other posts how zone is somewhat overpowered by Vet.
He thinks its primarily a salary cap issue along with a few OOP plays from what I gather.
My guess is that it's more than that. However, there are multiple steps to the logic. It seems prudent to fix the first step first and then see the results. I'm falling into the camp that INT rates are too high overall - both Man and Zone. It's just more apparent with Zone. My Man D in S55 had a INT rate of 4.57%. That's too high in my opinion, though it does include Vet-Pro games and CPU games. So maybe overall it's fine. But if Zone is then going to be balanced by have more INTs than Man, you're getting to a point where it breaks the game.
After experimenting with Strip Tech, I think INT is over-powered and Strip is underpowered. Every Pass attempt is an INT chance, whereas it's Pass Completions that give Stip it's opportunity. Rushing plays can't generate an INT and they can a Strip, so my guess is that Bort and Cdog think they should have different fire rates. And that's true. But overall, over the course of a game and season, spending SPs in INT is better than spending SPs in Strip.
Point is Xars did a really job illustrating both here and some of his other posts how zone is somewhat overpowered by Vet.
He thinks its primarily a salary cap issue along with a few OOP plays from what I gather.
My guess is that it's more than that. However, there are multiple steps to the logic. It seems prudent to fix the first step first and then see the results. I'm falling into the camp that INT rates are too high overall - both Man and Zone. It's just more apparent with Zone. My Man D in S55 had a INT rate of 4.57%. That's too high in my opinion, though it does include Vet-Pro games and CPU games. So maybe overall it's fine. But if Zone is then going to be balanced by have more INTs than Man, you're getting to a point where it breaks the game.
After experimenting with Strip Tech, I think INT is over-powered and Strip is underpowered. Every Pass attempt is an INT chance, whereas it's Pass Completions that give Stip it's opportunity. Rushing plays can't generate an INT and they can a Strip, so my guess is that Bort and Cdog think they should have different fire rates. And that's true. But overall, over the course of a game and season, spending SPs in INT is better than spending SPs in Strip.
Xars
offline
offline
Originally posted by william78
A LB who is man covering a WR isn't hit with OOP if he's not filling in for some other position even though he maybe lined up like a CB.
The game has fixed formations. We can't move a WR into the slot and slide a RB to the edge like the Patriots did. And I don't have a problem with S* LBs covering WRs in the slot, per se.
The problem is that the Salary cost of LBs should match HBs since they are both Tier 1 dots and not WRs. The NFL Salary cost isn't a factor in the game since the game has it's own salary structure - and in the end, that is the equalizer amongst all teams.
A LB who is man covering a WR isn't hit with OOP if he's not filling in for some other position even though he maybe lined up like a CB.
The game has fixed formations. We can't move a WR into the slot and slide a RB to the edge like the Patriots did. And I don't have a problem with S* LBs covering WRs in the slot, per se.
The problem is that the Salary cost of LBs should match HBs since they are both Tier 1 dots and not WRs. The NFL Salary cost isn't a factor in the game since the game has it's own salary structure - and in the end, that is the equalizer amongst all teams.
darkwingaa
offline
offline
Originally posted by Kayoh
it would be pretty nice if the head fake and pump fake SAs actually did something. As it stands right now there's really no way to get your receivers actually open in any consistent way so the entire meta is just trying to win catch rolls on contested catches, so it'd be really nice if a pump fake QB paired with a bunch of really good route running WRs with head fake would actually be a viable offensive combination. Sadly it's just not.
WRs do get open, but QBs can't time their throws or place their passes accurately enough to take advantage of it. I can't count the number of times my WRs have gotten a few steps on their defender, but it doesn't matter because the pass is off or late.
There was a time when QBs were much more accurate at leading their targets, but it was nerfed because passing became way overpowered.
it would be pretty nice if the head fake and pump fake SAs actually did something. As it stands right now there's really no way to get your receivers actually open in any consistent way so the entire meta is just trying to win catch rolls on contested catches, so it'd be really nice if a pump fake QB paired with a bunch of really good route running WRs with head fake would actually be a viable offensive combination. Sadly it's just not.
WRs do get open, but QBs can't time their throws or place their passes accurately enough to take advantage of it. I can't count the number of times my WRs have gotten a few steps on their defender, but it doesn't matter because the pass is off or late.
There was a time when QBs were much more accurate at leading their targets, but it was nerfed because passing became way overpowered.
Cybertron
offline
offline
Originally posted by darkwingaa
WRs do get open, but QBs can't time their throws or place their passes accurately enough to take advantage of it. I can't count the number of times my WRs have gotten a few steps on their defender, but it doesn't matter because the pass is off or late.
This is the problem. The WR is hardly ever hit in stride.
Could it be a QB accuracy issue? I don't think people use high acc on their QBs.
WRs do get open, but QBs can't time their throws or place their passes accurately enough to take advantage of it. I can't count the number of times my WRs have gotten a few steps on their defender, but it doesn't matter because the pass is off or late.
This is the problem. The WR is hardly ever hit in stride.
Could it be a QB accuracy issue? I don't think people use high acc on their QBs.
Edited by Cybertron on Dec 6, 2021 11:13:14
Edited by Cybertron on Dec 6, 2021 11:12:31
ellix
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cybertron
This is the problem. The WR is hardly ever hit in stride.
Could it be a QB accuracy issue? I don't think people use high acc on their QBs.
Most go to 70 but I know some go higher. Thing is, almost every time a receiver is hit in stride it is absolutely devastating. If we went from a point of it rarely happening to being somewhat reliable it would become the defacto way to play the game. Just hit WRs on Posts and Streaks and play the numbers game.
We have to be careful of what we wish for. Because if looked through the lense of a normal offense that isn't trying to leverage that, it might seem like a relatively mild change.
But you'll get agents like me, Vipermaw or Pheep who will immediately push that to the most extreme point possible and you could end up with a very unfun time.
This is the problem. The WR is hardly ever hit in stride.
Could it be a QB accuracy issue? I don't think people use high acc on their QBs.
Most go to 70 but I know some go higher. Thing is, almost every time a receiver is hit in stride it is absolutely devastating. If we went from a point of it rarely happening to being somewhat reliable it would become the defacto way to play the game. Just hit WRs on Posts and Streaks and play the numbers game.
We have to be careful of what we wish for. Because if looked through the lense of a normal offense that isn't trying to leverage that, it might seem like a relatively mild change.
But you'll get agents like me, Vipermaw or Pheep who will immediately push that to the most extreme point possible and you could end up with a very unfun time.
Edited by ellix on Dec 6, 2021 11:32:09
Edited by ellix on Dec 6, 2021 11:31:33
BoDiddley
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cybertron
Could it be a QB accuracy issue? I don't think people use high acc on their QBs.
Accuracy and Pass Power. But you basically need a S* QB to get those numbers high enough.
Could it be a QB accuracy issue? I don't think people use high acc on their QBs.
Accuracy and Pass Power. But you basically need a S* QB to get those numbers high enough.
Xars
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cybertron
This is the problem. The WR is hardly ever hit in stride.
Could it be a QB accuracy issue? I don't think people use high acc on their QBs.
In the past, almost every QB was high Accuracy, with some extremely so. The Top 6 HoF QBs are all extreme accuracy with Belgarath's 85 the low and Saul Silver's 100 the high end.
Then Pass Power and Accuracy got tied together.
Then the Pass Power arc change happened.
So now a S* QB is effectively required.
Originally posted by ellix
Thing is, almost every time a receiver is hit in stride it is absolutely devastating.
True. It's almost an instant TD.
This is the problem. The WR is hardly ever hit in stride.
Could it be a QB accuracy issue? I don't think people use high acc on their QBs.
In the past, almost every QB was high Accuracy, with some extremely so. The Top 6 HoF QBs are all extreme accuracy with Belgarath's 85 the low and Saul Silver's 100 the high end.
Then Pass Power and Accuracy got tied together.
Then the Pass Power arc change happened.
So now a S* QB is effectively required.
Originally posted by ellix
Thing is, almost every time a receiver is hit in stride it is absolutely devastating.
True. It's almost an instant TD.
Bretto007
offline
offline
Do a fix for the QB scrambling tactics- A frequency set to "Often" should get you 5-10 rushes a game, Sometimes 1-5 rushes per game
Running plays for the WR
A split back shotgun formation- FB on one side and HB on the other
Running plays for the WR
A split back shotgun formation- FB on one side and HB on the other
william78
offline
offline
Originally posted by Xars
The game has fixed formations. We can't move a WR into the slot and slide a RB to the edge like the Patriots did. And I don't have a problem with S* LBs covering WRs in the slot, per se.
Well I'm fine with going through the 4th wall on salary cap by position lots of things don't bother me anymore that used to years ago.
That said - The OOP going on depth chart rather than alignment is something that I think creates a number of game situations that unnatural and because its unnatural it creates the need to adjust game mechanics in other ways that have unintended consequences on other factors of play. It's sort of the original sin that leads to all sorts of hacks down the road.
Superstar LBs or top tier covering a WR in the slot at any tier is just a bad idea. No one after high school tries this on a regular basis because its very unnautral to the game. It's not just athleticism its skill. A corner or DB like all other positions is highly skilled they practice their backpedal, turning and running, jamming....
This is all of 10 seconds of video but it exactly details what I mean: https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ExaltedRecentBordercollie-mobile.mp4?_=3
This is from a Browns- Pittsburgh game last year, I'm not a Steelers fan but the number of times they tried to cover receivers with LBs really annoyed their fans last year. You can pretty much take one look at the two inside receivers and then a look at the outside receivers covered by corners....
The LBs are giving ground they run at angles....the CBs are low they are still in a backpedal its smooth the coverage is there. You can forget the result - yes its a big play and yes it looks bad for the defense but it's just straight logical for GLB game mechanics as well.
Footwork controls both side to side and backpedal. I mean I'd be fine if DB's had their own seperate backpedal stat - but again no need to create another whole attribute just OOP the alignment. LBs traditionally cover TEs and HBs CBs cover WRs. Don't do that and the skill set you are well asking for trouble.
Now if you get home with a blitz or rush the QB so fast he has to get rid of it before the WR can do his thing and fully seperate that's a win for the defense too - but the idea that a LB can cover a WR regularly is just very wrong and because its so wrong there are other mechanics that end up being off. Plus its something every DC has full control of because we do match up by formation.
The game has fixed formations. We can't move a WR into the slot and slide a RB to the edge like the Patriots did. And I don't have a problem with S* LBs covering WRs in the slot, per se.
Well I'm fine with going through the 4th wall on salary cap by position lots of things don't bother me anymore that used to years ago.
That said - The OOP going on depth chart rather than alignment is something that I think creates a number of game situations that unnatural and because its unnatural it creates the need to adjust game mechanics in other ways that have unintended consequences on other factors of play. It's sort of the original sin that leads to all sorts of hacks down the road.
Superstar LBs or top tier covering a WR in the slot at any tier is just a bad idea. No one after high school tries this on a regular basis because its very unnautral to the game. It's not just athleticism its skill. A corner or DB like all other positions is highly skilled they practice their backpedal, turning and running, jamming....
This is all of 10 seconds of video but it exactly details what I mean: https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ExaltedRecentBordercollie-mobile.mp4?_=3
This is from a Browns- Pittsburgh game last year, I'm not a Steelers fan but the number of times they tried to cover receivers with LBs really annoyed their fans last year. You can pretty much take one look at the two inside receivers and then a look at the outside receivers covered by corners....
The LBs are giving ground they run at angles....the CBs are low they are still in a backpedal its smooth the coverage is there. You can forget the result - yes its a big play and yes it looks bad for the defense but it's just straight logical for GLB game mechanics as well.
Footwork controls both side to side and backpedal. I mean I'd be fine if DB's had their own seperate backpedal stat - but again no need to create another whole attribute just OOP the alignment. LBs traditionally cover TEs and HBs CBs cover WRs. Don't do that and the skill set you are well asking for trouble.
Now if you get home with a blitz or rush the QB so fast he has to get rid of it before the WR can do his thing and fully seperate that's a win for the defense too - but the idea that a LB can cover a WR regularly is just very wrong and because its so wrong there are other mechanics that end up being off. Plus its something every DC has full control of because we do match up by formation.
Myrik_Justiciar
offline
offline
Originally posted by Xars
GLB2 Changelog Requests
Code Changes
[Code] Base Salary Change
Tier 1
QB $4,490,000 / HB $3,380,000 / LB $2,750,000
Tier 2
FB $2,120,000 / WR $2,800,000 / TE $2,960,000 / CB $3,380,000 / SS $2,540,000 / FS $2,540,000 / DE $3,170,000
Tier 3
OT $2,170,000 / G $2,060,000 / C $2,060,000 / DT $2,430,000 / K $1,270,000 / P $1,270,000
Suggestion: Switch the Salaries of LBs and CBs. This makes more "game" sense in that LBs matchup with HBs and CBs matchup with WR. The above also shows how moving FB to Tier 3 (and this may change some of the SP costs) makes sense as FB salary is closer to the OLine than the other skill players.
Upping the cost of LBs in regards to Zone would be a huge nerf considering the meat of what makes zone work is the LB position. You aren't wrong that CBs cost too much for their value, and I'd like to see more SA's or something for them.
Originally posted by Xars
This is actually the HIGHEST priority change in the game.
Why? Rosters need to be re-balanced with less LBs and more CBs to properly cover 3WR, 4WR and 5WR sets. At the same time, this change will blow up teams without proper notice and/or implementation. The ‘other’ issues shouldn’t be tuned and then one day this is fixed. The salary issue needs to be properly addressed so that we can eventually implement the other needed changes.
[Code] Defensive Mismatch of Personnel and/or Formation
Eventually, we need to address how plays like 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger excel against 5WR, 4WR and 3WR sets. I'm sure there are Man examples as well like Middle Overload and 5-2 Over Mike against 4WR. The basic issue is too many LBs on the field trying to match up with WRs.
I don't think we need less LBs at all, personally I think I've only ever used 4 LBs or if I did have more it was way back S10 or further, and I've personally always carried 5 CBs. Now I know guys carry less CBs and replace them with FS's due to cost.
As far as mismatch LBs vs WRs on the plays you mentioned, maybe you see that in Man I dunno.... But in Zone those LBs are not covering any TE or WR, they are just covering their area (as per CDog). 3-4 Tiger only has 2 LBs in Coverage anyways, its' more to do with the pre-snap blitz LB forcing bad throws. If I were to use your IRL argument, I watched a lot of college football this year and saw plenty of 3-3-5 and 3-4 type base defenses all game. LBs are more about coverage now than ever before... For example, KY would often run their 4th LB as a nickel backer or have one LB get up one the line in 2 pt stance near the DE, etc.
GLB2 Changelog Requests
Code Changes
[Code] Base Salary Change
Tier 1
QB $4,490,000 / HB $3,380,000 / LB $2,750,000
Tier 2
FB $2,120,000 / WR $2,800,000 / TE $2,960,000 / CB $3,380,000 / SS $2,540,000 / FS $2,540,000 / DE $3,170,000
Tier 3
OT $2,170,000 / G $2,060,000 / C $2,060,000 / DT $2,430,000 / K $1,270,000 / P $1,270,000
Suggestion: Switch the Salaries of LBs and CBs. This makes more "game" sense in that LBs matchup with HBs and CBs matchup with WR. The above also shows how moving FB to Tier 3 (and this may change some of the SP costs) makes sense as FB salary is closer to the OLine than the other skill players.
Upping the cost of LBs in regards to Zone would be a huge nerf considering the meat of what makes zone work is the LB position. You aren't wrong that CBs cost too much for their value, and I'd like to see more SA's or something for them.
Originally posted by Xars
This is actually the HIGHEST priority change in the game.
Why? Rosters need to be re-balanced with less LBs and more CBs to properly cover 3WR, 4WR and 5WR sets. At the same time, this change will blow up teams without proper notice and/or implementation. The ‘other’ issues shouldn’t be tuned and then one day this is fixed. The salary issue needs to be properly addressed so that we can eventually implement the other needed changes.
[Code] Defensive Mismatch of Personnel and/or Formation
Eventually, we need to address how plays like 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger excel against 5WR, 4WR and 3WR sets. I'm sure there are Man examples as well like Middle Overload and 5-2 Over Mike against 4WR. The basic issue is too many LBs on the field trying to match up with WRs.
I don't think we need less LBs at all, personally I think I've only ever used 4 LBs or if I did have more it was way back S10 or further, and I've personally always carried 5 CBs. Now I know guys carry less CBs and replace them with FS's due to cost.
As far as mismatch LBs vs WRs on the plays you mentioned, maybe you see that in Man I dunno.... But in Zone those LBs are not covering any TE or WR, they are just covering their area (as per CDog). 3-4 Tiger only has 2 LBs in Coverage anyways, its' more to do with the pre-snap blitz LB forcing bad throws. If I were to use your IRL argument, I watched a lot of college football this year and saw plenty of 3-3-5 and 3-4 type base defenses all game. LBs are more about coverage now than ever before... For example, KY would often run their 4th LB as a nickel backer or have one LB get up one the line in 2 pt stance near the DE, etc.
Edited by Myrik_Justiciar on Dec 6, 2021 17:37:45
Edited by Myrik_Justiciar on Dec 6, 2021 17:24:19
Edited by Myrik_Justiciar on Dec 6, 2021 16:43:09
Xars
offline
offline
I was going to wait until Game 29, but I'll do it today.
The Top 10 Ladder teams have
10 S* LB and 32 non-S* LB
2 S* CB and 45 non-S* CB
Doesn't this seems a little unbalanced? Hasn't this been the case for dozens and dozens of seasons?
Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I don't think we need less LBs at all, personally I think I've only ever used 4 LBs or if I did have more it was way back S10 or further, and I've personally always carried 5 CBs. Now I know guys carry less CBs and replace them with FS's due to cost.
We may not need less LBs but when 25% of LBs are S* and 2% of CBs are S*, that's a 12x factor.
The Salary isn't the easiest change but I think it's a necessary change. It's Global and effects Man as well. The effect may not be equal but when you see numbers like these maybe it shouldn't:
Originally posted by Xars
1WR: (5.00)
2TE: 0.06
2WR: (0.89)
3WR: 1.47
3WR TRIPS: (2.30)
4WR: (2.61)
4WR TRIPS: 3.45
5WR: (1.57)
There's a difference between making some worse (relative) and making something ineffective (absolute).
The Top 10 Ladder teams have
10 S* LB and 32 non-S* LB
2 S* CB and 45 non-S* CB
Doesn't this seems a little unbalanced? Hasn't this been the case for dozens and dozens of seasons?
Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I don't think we need less LBs at all, personally I think I've only ever used 4 LBs or if I did have more it was way back S10 or further, and I've personally always carried 5 CBs. Now I know guys carry less CBs and replace them with FS's due to cost.
We may not need less LBs but when 25% of LBs are S* and 2% of CBs are S*, that's a 12x factor.
The Salary isn't the easiest change but I think it's a necessary change. It's Global and effects Man as well. The effect may not be equal but when you see numbers like these maybe it shouldn't:
Originally posted by Xars
1WR: (5.00)
2TE: 0.06
2WR: (0.89)
3WR: 1.47
3WR TRIPS: (2.30)
4WR: (2.61)
4WR TRIPS: 3.45
5WR: (1.57)
There's a difference between making some worse (relative) and making something ineffective (absolute).
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
