Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Xars
I don't agree that a small playbook is necessarily bad for the game. Though I think I understand the point you are trying to make. I'd like to see Balanced Offense's be superior to Run or Pass only, but that's not the game we have. I don't think the argument has to be around 5 plays or 10 plays in the playbook specifically.

The game's problem is that the Offense can specialize in either all run or all pass skills. Building a Balanced Offensive player playing in a Balanced Offensive scheme isn't rewarded. Once it is (not sure exactly how, but most of the changes are in this direction), you'll see the demise of the extreme Offense (and playbook size really won't be the issue).

Southside is a balanced team, doing pretty well for itself.

Originally posted by Galithor
Yeah, lets tap the brakes on calling the passing game overpowered.

When passing teams regularly have punt-less games, then we'll open that discussion.



It's not the punt less games. It's the lack of ability to stop.

Originally posted by Xars

Composite Data:
LZ has a Comp% of 56.6% and YPA of 8.15 and YPC of 14.36
non-LZ has a Comp% of 49.5% and YPA of 6.80 and YPC of 13.86


So this is the question, should the above plays be nerfed (or D buffed against them) when the non-LZ teams are averaging:

Completion% of 49.5%,
YPA of 6.8,
YPC of 13.86?

I don't see the evidence.



Show me some running play that 50% of the time will give you a 13 yard gain with no real way of stopping it 3 plays in a row. Teams can sell out to stop the run... I should be able to sell out and stop the pass if I choose. Rush no one.... Drop Everyone into coverage... That's what would happen in any other game of football when their is a 100% chance it will be passed on every play.

Originally posted by Xars
I don't agree that a small playbook is necessarily bad for the game. Though I think I understand the point you are trying to make. I'd like to see Balanced Offense's be superior to Run or Pass only, but that's not the game we have. I don't think the argument has to be around 5 plays or 10 plays in the playbook specifically.

The game's problem is that the Offense can specialize in either all run or all pass skills. Building a Balanced Offensive player playing in a Balanced Offensive scheme isn't rewarded. Once it is (not sure exactly how, but most of the changes are in this direction), you'll see the demise of the extreme Offense (and playbook size really won't be the issue).



Putting in a 5 play playbook - then just rolling with it for 5 seasons is awful. It doesn't promote tweaking. It doesn't promote involvement and engagement with the game. It makes the game appear to be overly simple - it makes the game appear to be anything but a computer football simulator.

Anything that sends the message to a brand new player:
- WR Posts / drive / cross / drive / post are the plays that work

is going to lead to people leaving the game, people losing interest, etc.

I don't fault you for doing it. I fault corndog and bort for not tweaking the game and paying attention more and forcing variety on offenses through more defensive plays, etc.

I do think the favored deep routes need to be nerfed a bit or have a higher degree of difficulty, but it's got to come with a pretty massive buff to shorter passing completion %'s. That's been pointed out season after season though. TE Drive isn't a play that should have a 45-60% success rate. It ought to be more like 35-45% on the downfield routes. Short routes ought to have completion rates north of 70% easily, but most don't.

Originally posted by crazieveggie
Show me some running play that 50% of the time will give you a 13 yard gain with no real way of stopping it 3 plays in a row. Teams can sell out to stop the run... I should be able to sell out and stop the pass if I choose. Rush no one.... Drop Everyone into coverage... That's what would happen in any other game of football when their is a 100% chance it will be passed on every play.


That's a point I tried to make for 8 seasons or so. Never had any luck.

That's a reason I'd like to see Corndog step away from the lurks (the answer isn't going to be in zone...zone mechanics don't work well) and just get simple. Get some plays in there you'd see in a game in your street:

- you two guys cover that guy...
or even
- you 3 guys cover that guy.


Does that mean a superstar WR might see double and/or triple coverage ALL the time? of course it does. But that is the game. If he's eating 2 or 3 defenders - that is a pretty valuable service he is providing to his team in spite of the lesser stats he gets. (and we know he'll still put up good stats).

Then it would open up -- moving the superstar around the depth chart -- which would open up trying different plays -- etc etc etc

Originally posted by crazieveggie
Show me some running play that 50% of the time will give you a 13 yard gain with no real way of stopping it 3 plays in a row. Teams can sell out to stop the run... I should be able to sell out and stop the pass if I choose. Rush no one.... Drop Everyone into coverage... That's what would happen in any other game of football when their is a 100% chance it will be passed on every play.


You're skipping some details about what those routes do and don't do vs what a running play does and doesn't do.

If the pass fails, it's still 10 yards to the first down. The rushing failing to get the first down in one try will generally at least leave you with a more favorable position for the second try at some distance shorter than 10 yards.

Logzilla won their last game 87-14. Even doing that, they still punted the ball 5 times against the Gamblers. Against Veteran #1 - 4 punts, 2 turnovers. Against Madison - 5 punts, 1 turnover. Against Dallas - 6 punts. Against ICK - 4 punts, 1 turnover. Against LiK - 4 punts. Against Tampa Bay - 3 punts.

And such is the nature of passing the ball. You're going to have drives end in failure against even modest competition. That's not necessarily true for an all-rushing offense. You regularly see 1-2 drive failures when a rushing offense plays modest competition.

That Logzilla's numbers appear monstrous offensively is a result of passing the ball stops the clock to drive up the total playcount in games. Especially since the most efficient style of passing is deep throws for short, quick drives that end in 3-6 reception drives for scores, or quick turnovers/punts.

Ya'll want something fun to try against Xar's team?

He's admitted he's got a "blocking" HB. Run some Cover 4 zones against him. You'll force him to dump it off 30 times a game to his HBs. Then all these fancy run stuffing defenses can do what they do best, knock the piss out of his HBs for fumbles. You'll make him drive the field in more total plays, which will increase his odds of critical failure.

Even with little zone awareness, his QB will be less likely to challenge an 8 man blanket on those deeper routes that often when his HB is intentionally WAO on underneath stuff.

The dirty way this works is with only 3 pass rushers, you actually let his WRs get further downfield into the thick Cover 4. You're not forcing his QB to make quicker decisions while those routes are still underneath the coverage. So he'll make quality calls on the targets, and the quality target will be that HB out in the flat or uselessly roaming mostly no further than 5 yards downfield.

The DC Corrupt politicians did this in a scrimmage against Air Raid one time, and it worked really well. I was glad they disbanded and didn't show this to anyone else. They weren't built to inflict fumbles like some of these run stopping defenses are built either. It might just be brutal.

So there's one possible idea. Free of charge. The teams with nasty Over Will blitzes should stick to that probably. But for teams that don't have that, you should try this at least once too see how it looks.

Example of Cover 4, from Season 7 offseason:

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/131820/pbp

Notice the 34 total targets to two HBs. Those are some looooong drives. And Cover 4 was even better at stuffing the redzone to force field goals.

Oh hey, an old DC politicians game.

Probably not the best example since both teams only punted once. I think the only reason you lost was because you kicked more FGs

Originally posted by TehKyou
Oh hey, an old DC politicians game.

Probably not the best example since both teams only punted once

Different sim many nerfs ago. That was Air Raid's #1 ladder season. Teams are built differently today, and the sim has been altered somewhat since then. I've wanted to run a defense based around Cover 4 ever since that game. Forcing 34 targets to the HBs is not insignificant at all. It's something I haven't seen anyone try since.

I just didn't want you burning me deep .

I'm glad I could inspire you

Originally posted by TehKyou
I just didn't want you burning me deep

It worked better than you think. Look up Cleveland Brown. Go to his game log for Season 7. Now filter it by YPA. Then filter by TDs.

It was probably the best defensive performance against Air Raid that entire season.

Alright I'm impressed. Too bad it was a scrim

I'm Sorry... But defense was buffed way to much. This is Dogs all Go... And they don't.

I guess it would partially help if Dots wouldn't just randomly step out of bounds.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/190193/745014

Hmm, first step fires on pitches? Or was it because it was a counter?