Warrior General Games

People make S* LBs because they are effective and worth the cost. S* CBs, in my experience, are not. I'm not convinced flipping their cost would change that.

Originally posted by Xars
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?



What I see there is that CBs could stand to be cheaper with some changes to make their value worth more (ie. SAs or whatever), while LB's are fine in regards to how this game works and IRL because of their diversity. The old school LB's like from the 90s/2000s just don't exist anymore because the NFL and college is more pass orientated.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
The old school LB's like from the 90s/2000s just don't exist anymore because the NFL and college is more pass orientated.

While that's true - they still don't cover like corners

Originally posted by william78
While that's true - they still don't cover like corners

We still see 3-4 Defenses in college/pro being prominent vs various pass formations just fine, which makes me think if anything I prob need to create more 3-4 defense play suggestions.

what I'm basically getting from this thread is that the sim is so utterly broken that fixing any one small part of it without fixing the entire thing would break it even further, so none of the problems get fixed because you can't fix any one of them without fixing all of them, and fixing all of them is an insurmountable challenge.

EDIT

actually, if that's the case, here are my requests.

1. more 2 TE passing plays
2. more pinched DL 3-4 plays (or just an option to pinch or spread your line like in GLB1)
3. a few "big" sub package defensive formations ("big nickel" 3-3-5/4-2-5 with 2 CBs and 3 safeties, "big dime" 3-2-6/4-1-6 with 3 CBs and 3 safeties, "big quarter" 3-1-7 with 3 safeties and 4 CBs or even 4 safeties and 3 CBs)
4. some empty set offensive formations that include a TE or two rather than just 5 WRs
5. passing plays out of goal line 👀

Originally posted by Kayoh
what I'm basically getting from this thread is that the sim is so utterly broken that fixing any one small part of it without fixing the entire thing would break it even further, so none of the problems get fixed because you can't fix any one of them without fixing all of them, and fixing all of them is an insurmountable challenge.

EDIT

actually, if that's the case, here are my requests.

2. more pinched DL 3-4 plays (or just an option to pinch or spread your line like in GLB1)


I don't think it's utterly broken, just needs some love in spots.

I can work on some new 3-4 play suggestions soon if I can get time before season ends.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I don't think it's utterly broken, just needs some love in spots.

I can work on some new 3-4 play suggestions soon if I can get time before season ends.
I'm probably being hyperbolic, but I'm following this logic

-the current/lasting passing meta is trying to win catch rolls because receivers can't get open long enough for QBs to hit them before the situation becomes contested, or at least QBs can't hit open receivers while they're still open
-if receivers could get openfor long enough for QBs to hit them uncontested, or if QBs could hit them in stride while they are open for however brief that is, passing would become unstoppable

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
We still see 3-4 Defenses in college/pro being prominent vs various pass formations just fine, which makes me think if anything I prob need to create more 3-4 defense play suggestions.

That's because it isn't Bellichick and Josh Daniels scheming against them. The moment that happens, they are all fucked.

Or did you not watch the video?

Originally posted by Kayoh
what I'm basically getting from this thread is that the sim is so utterly broken

It's not.

But fixing things OUT OF ORDER will cause more problems eventually than fixing them in the proper order.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
What I see there is that CBs could stand to be cheaper with some changes to make their value worth more (ie. SAs or whatever), while LB's are fine in regards to how this game works and IRL because of their diversity.

You're making comments again instead of doing analysis. LBs are Tier 1 dots. Inherently, they matchup with QBs and HBs, yet their Salary Cost is that of a Tier 2. CBs are Tier 2 dots and their Salary Cost is that of a Tier 1 dot.

Originally posted by atlbruce
People make S* LBs because they are effective and worth the cost. S* CBs, in my experience, are not. I'm not convinced flipping their cost would change that.


In GLB2, there are standard formations we all have to live with. The NFL/College can change things up more than us.
In GLB2, there is a defined Salary Cap AND specific base salaries for each position. The NFL has a Cap, but each contract can be anything.

We have structure parameters that the NFL doesn't have.

There's a $630,000 difference between LBs and CBs.

Originally posted by Xars
The Top 10 Ladder teams have

10 S* LB and 32 non-S* LB
2 S* CB and 45 non-S* CB


Overall, since there are more CBs than LBs on Vet Rosters, teams would actually have more Cap Space with the Salary Change. It's just that the S* positions will shift some.

Myrik, if you have 4 LBs and 5 CBs, you free up $630,000 of Cap Space. Maybe you can't have 2 S* LBs, but you can have 1 S* LB and another S* elsewhere and more Cap room. If Zone needs multiple S* LBs to work, then it is broken. But it's broken in the wrong way - it's overpowered; not underpowered. Look at the Cover 3 Tiger yards per play analysis. It's dominant at ever tier and against every Vet formation. There are a few individual plays it is weak against, but it's difficult to build a playbook that just uses them given the playbook constraints.

That's clearly OP.

Now why is it OP?

That's the key question.

Originally posted by atlbruce
People make S* LBs because they are effective and worth the cost. S* CBs, in my experience, are not. I'm not convinced flipping their cost would change that.

Your argument is that the Benefit of LBs is worth more than the Cost of LBs and the Benefit of CBs is worth less than the Cost of CBs and yet changing the cost (only) of each doesn't change the relationship?

In the end, people may eat the Salary hit but I doubt the 12x factor remains. LBs may still be favored but I doubt it stays at 12x.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
We still see 3-4 Defenses in college/pro being prominent vs various pass formations just fine, which makes me think if anything I prob need to create more 3-4 defense play suggestions.

That's not generally correct. Does it work sometimes sure - it's still not the "same" otherwise teams with great LBs who are fast and fluid would never sub them out for nickel and dime. Ask Alabama against Clemson in 2019 , Alabama has been producing NFL caliber ILBs for decades some of the best - trying that early on was certainly not to their benefit.

That's why I think the footwork penalty is the way to go as opposed to jostling cap numbers , it's smaller and it directly effects this one area of the game where player attributes are not wholly accurate to real movement. It's not the death nail of the play but it creates more accurate pre-pass movement. The LB or safety isn't then "gifted" with the same ability to backpedal like a corner.

Even in deeper zones you don't see LBs "backup" into the deep 3 or 4 zone they turn their heads and run. The corner meanwhile keeps his eyes on the receiver/QB.

LB's in a cover 2 shell under probably shouldn't be penalized but they should when they drop to a 3 or a 4 on misalignment.

Man press coverage out to penalize any LB / S trying to play press man on footwork with a smaller penalty on awareness since its not what they do everyday.

Originally posted by Xars
It's not.

But fixing things OUT OF ORDER will cause more problems eventually than fixing them in the proper order.



This is why your diagnosis is correct Dr. Xars but the perscription seems a little aggressive to me.

Your analysis among other things showed an INT rate at 4.76 thats a ltitle high not super-high.

Drapping a Footwork/Awareness Penalty on Players in mismatch status seems to be smaller and more incremental plus it directly corrects something where game attributes favor one set of mechanics over another.

That and the SA your mention on the QB reading mismatches seem smaller overall in terms of game play change than playing with cap numbers which would be heavily disruptive to every team across the board.

Originally posted by william78
This is why your diagnosis is correct Dr. Xars but the perscription seems a little aggressive to me.



Theoretically, it would increase cap space so, net it would make teams better. That said it would shift some S* from LBs to CBs.

Now would certain Zone plays be less effective? Probably. But also some Man plays would too.

Are there Zone and Man plays that would become more effective? I'd like to think so.

It's not actually a huge change but it's enough to screw over people who made S* and how some rosters are put together.

A Footwork/Awareness penalty might be easier to code or it might be harder. Depends on Cdog and Bort.

A s* LB with 2 +12% abilities costs $7,525,000 at a medium contract. - With arguably the best traits in the game.
a s* CB with just superstar costs $8,450,000 at a medium contract.

Think of the things you could do on Defense both in zone and man if CB's were correctly costed.