Warrior General Games

Originally posted by ThePh33P
In the test xars ran bsb had 5.7% rate in man coverage and a 6.3% in zone but gave up 8.3% more completions for more yards.

#1 played #2 on the Ladder in a SHIP game and there were 11 INTs. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/824081

Perhaps it's possible - just possible - that INTs are currently too high in the game?

Now, we probably have a ton of S* QBs and S* WRs that are going to be built so perhaps we're already in the process of changing that.

But I think people should be open to the idea that INTs might have gone a little crazy and might need a future nerf.

Just preparing you.

Originally posted by Cybertron
Not if you toss to the weak side in a trips formation. Theoretically, that should kill a zone.

Depends on the RDE and RO builds and play call. You can shoot the C gap (Off Tackle) and disrupt the Pitch Weak with some Zone plays, but it makes you more exposed to the B gap (Slam).

Originally posted by Xars
#1 played #2 on the Ladder in a SHIP game and there were 11 INTs. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/824081

Perhaps it's possible - just possible - that INTs are currently too high in the game?

Now, we probably have a ton of S* QBs and S* WRs that are going to be built so perhaps we're already in the process of changing that.

But I think people should be open to the idea that INTs might have gone a little crazy and might need a future nerf.

Just preparing you.



3 were in man coverage. 8 zone, crappy weather. Let's see where changes that took place this season take us before we get too excited about nerfs.

Originally posted by BoDiddley


If we take Church's stats this entire season against a wide variety of opponents and 1288 passes, this is what we see...

Short passes - 43% 2.5 YPA, 8.3% Int

Medium passes - 44% 3.8 YPA, 8.4% Int

Long passes - 40% 4.8 YPA, 8.5% Int

^
I don't see any deviation between pass length and the Int rate. So what exactly do we need to balance?


That's (a different) kind of the problem actually. There's isn't a difference.

I'd have to pull the NFL data, but the INT rate should be higher on deeper throws than short ones - generally. It's just one team so play calling and builds can skew things but it's not intuitive.

The INT rate should be lower on Short passes than Long - again, generally.

Originally posted by Xars
That's (a different) kind of the problem actually. There's isn't a difference.

I'd have to pull the NFL data, but the INT rate should be higher on deeper throws than short ones - generally. It's just one team so play calling and builds can skew things but it's not intuitive.

The INT rate should be lower on Short passes than Long - again, generally.

I've only ever seen it broken down for over/under 15 yards - but:

Under 15 yards:

~2% of outside passes
~2.5% of middle passes

Over 15 yards:

~6.34% of outside passes
~8.5% of middle passes

Originally posted by Xars
#1 played #2 on the Ladder in a SHIP game and there were 11 INTs. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/824081

Perhaps it's possible - just possible - that INTs are currently too high in the game?

Now, we probably have a ton of S* QBs and S* WRs that are going to be built so perhaps we're already in the process of changing that.

But I think people should be open to the idea that INTs might have gone a little crazy and might need a future nerf.

Just preparing you.



to be fair to the game though you can say that exact sentence for any number of things related to game balance. Fumbles,Brtk or CIT

It's curious to see 3+ Interceptions a game as being too high but 33 Broken tackles a game isn't being brought up? RiF averaged 14 sacks a game should tunnel vision be addressed? DL are measured in the HUNDREDS of rev pancakes do they need a nerf? This hyper focus on zone interceptions is strange when you should really be looking at if they are contested or not.

I agree non-contested zone interceptions should be toned down. But zone should to be able to better contest at the point of catch. ESPECIALLY the deep zones.

Speaking to the deep zones EOTP should be able to activate in any zone it doesn't do enough in deep coverage to play near as much of a role as it does underneath and it looks cool out there. so far the only ints I've had in deep coverage with eotp active is on deep overthrows which makes sense and is thematic to that type of deep secondary player.

I'm a big fan of buffing things rather nerfing something. so personally I'd like to see QB's "see" the underneath player better and avoid throwing that ball or checking it down to a safer target more often. even just holding the ball for longer in those situations would be beneficial if unpressured.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Isn't the fact that a team can run a hybrid defense good enough for both man and zone defenses? Nerfing one, just limits the ability to expand the defensive PB immensely.

Personally, I really enjoyed making a hybrid defensive playbook and having success with it. Admittedly, I did not gameplan for any games at all, but I did share the offensive and defensive PBs publicly on glb2scout in the "Strategy Library".

Additionally, our only loss of the season came against The Seven, who used the very same PBs against BSB. They used them again in our 2nd game and BSB eeked out a close win.

Just like how teams stopped using pure passing or pure running offenses, people should probably move forward and use hybrid defenses IMO. Play diversity is good!

Agreed100%%

Originally posted by ThePh33P
I'm a big fan of buffing things rather nerfing something. so personally I'd like to see QB's "see" the underneath player better and avoid throwing that ball or checking it down to a safer target more often. even just holding the ball for longer in those situations would be beneficial if unpressured.

So far this is the best idea I have seen anyone mention. Just how a real QB would always know where his check down man is at.

Originally posted by ThePh33P
I'm a big fan of buffing things rather nerfing something. so personally I'd like to see QB's "see" the underneath player better and avoid throwing that ball or checking it down to a safer target more often. even just holding the ball for longer in those situations would be beneficial if unpressured.

No Joke, i would like Frazier to just hold the ball longer, instead of just chucking it. He's meant to laugh at pass rushers but somehow he still panics even without pressure.

Originally posted by ThePh33P
to be fair to the game though you can say that exact sentence for any number of things related to game balance. Fumbles,Brtk or CIT

It's curious to see 3+ Interceptions a game as being too high but 33 Broken tackles a game isn't being brought up? RiF averaged 14 sacks a game should tunnel vision be addressed? DL are measured in the HUNDREDS of rev pancakes do they need a nerf? This hyper focus on zone interceptions is strange when you should really be looking at if they are contested or not.



Solid point

Originally posted by dlcurt
Solid point

One that shows a potential broken mechanic on the Dline

Originally posted by ThePh33P
to be fair to the game though you can say that exact sentence for any number of things related to game balance. Fumbles,Brtk or CIT

It's curious to see 3+ Interceptions a game as being too high but 33 Broken tackles a game isn't being brought up? RiF averaged 14 sacks a game should tunnel vision be addressed? DL are measured in the HUNDREDS of rev pancakes do they need a nerf? This hyper focus on zone interceptions is strange when you should really be looking at if they are contested or not.

I agree non-contested zone interceptions should be toned down. But zone should to be able to better contest at the point of catch. ESPECIALLY the deep zones.

Speaking to the deep zones EOTP should be able to activate in any zone it doesn't do enough in deep coverage to play near as much of a role as it does underneath and it looks cool out there. so far the only ints I've had in deep coverage with eotp active is on deep overthrows which makes sense and is thematic to that type of deep secondary player.



Originally posted by ThePh33P
I'm a big fan of buffing things rather nerfing something. so personally I'd like to see QB's "see" the underneath player better and avoid throwing that ball or checking it down to a safer target more often. even just holding the ball for longer in those situations would be beneficial if unpressured.

I'm starting to become a fan of yours, Ph33p. Good stuff.

I think some1 needs to check code for DL mechanics. That is valid point.

Next thing to check is to measure impact of zone and man awarness. Is 60 or 70 awr is enough ? Does 100 makes any diffrence?

About church. I got average pass rush and that is killin my defence compared to bsb. If I got better 1 I would be much better.

My anti pass numbers: this Def is made to play against the pass. Majority of the sas are focused on pass. Majority of plays too. My dots cant tackle or cuz a fumble. U need to take those numbers into account. U r takin my strongest point ignoring how much I sacrificed for that.

Man2man got a higher ceiling than zone. But zone is cheaper cap wise. Thats good choice to have.

Originally posted by ThePh33P
I'm a big fan of buffing things rather nerfing something. so personally I'd like to see QB's "see" the underneath player better and avoid throwing that ball or checking it down to a safer target more often. even just holding the ball for longer in those situations would be beneficial if unpressured.

I made a post about that once, people told me to gameplan around zone better.

I really don't think zone is much of an issue as it is - but this one thing does bother me - that QBs can't read underneath guys properly and throw it right at them unpressured even with high morale.