Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Ghanima

CBs are expensive cap wise and are weakest in power tackling. That's just it.


Why do they need Power Tackling? They don't have it in Man defense.

I think I know where you're going with this. I'm not being snarky. Truly.

But please elaborate in more detail.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Xars
Myrik -

I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on this issue.

You're asking for more hitting power on CBs in your changelog post.

CBs should be able to get a tad more hitting power, this might open up to more CB heavier plays instead of LB heavier plays.

I have a thought but I'd like to hear your thought process on it first.



Asking for improved hitting power from CBs to generate more KL is one of the options we discussed to fix zone cbs in discord. Currently LB driven plays are favored because they can get picks far easier than CBs and they generate KL and FF far better as well, the SAs even favor the LBs better (EotP practically guaranteed to fire for LBs but not CBs). It's why I made the comment that CBs are basically overcosted incompetent safeties that bring little to the table to justify their cost, we might as well start carrying the minimal amount and add in dots elsewhere or increase star power in other positions. If not hitting power improved, then they need a SA or two specifically built for them otherwise we are basically forced to keep running LB centric defenses.

So CBs can play a zone with hard hitting and knock the ball loose...and/or cause fumbles. This is how I build my defense (outside of my CBs). My non-CBs are "power hitting" zone players. Almost all of them will gold Monster Hit. I would love to be able to put more power tackling into my CBs...with gold monster hit or zone shark.

Originally posted by Cybertron
So CBs can play a zone with hard hitting and knock the ball loose...and/or cause fumbles. This is how I build my defense (outside of my CBs). My non-CBs are "power hitting" zone players. Almost all of them will gold Monster Hit. I would love to be able to put more power tackling into my CBs...with gold monster hit or zone shark.

Hard-hitting CBS can already be made though. I've done it multiple times.

The problem I see is we will trend toward jack of all trade metas if we give positions everything. Teams use only 36 players but that comes with a cost of less versatility. If someone wants a power hitter then make it. But that means they will be weaker in other areas, as it should be

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Hard-hitting CBS can already be made though. I've done it multiple times.

The problem I see is we will trend toward jack of all trade metas if we give positions everything. Teams use only 36 players but that comes with a cost of less versatility. If someone wants a power hitter then make it. But that means they will be weaker in other areas, as it should be

CBs are costly and hitting power is costly in their builds so without a new SA or some sort boost to HP it would behoove us to just put a FS in their place instead. They do not contribute very much in a Zone defense that generally favor the LB spot, they are literally the weak link of the D. In Man the CB gets a lot of use for his cost being a solid pass defender anywhere on the field with several great SAs and their minimal HP in comparison to other positions is offset pretty well. I think most of us Zone guys would be happy with a good SA specifically but we get lots of pushback over it, so asking for more HP to get KL is another option we came up with.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
CBs are costly and hitting power is costly in their builds so without a new SA or some sort boost to HP it would behoove us to just put a FS in their place instead. They do not contribute very much in a Zone defense that generally favor the LB spot, they are literally the weak link of the D. In Man the CB gets a lot of use for his cost being a solid pass defender anywhere on the field with several great SAs and their minimal HP in comparison to other positions is offset pretty well. I think most of us Zone guys would be happy with a good SA specifically but we lots of pushback over it, so asking for more HP to get KL is another option we came up with.

A CB isn't a FS nor should it. If you want a KL CB then great. You shouldn't expect that player to be great in coverage also.

I do agree that CBs cost too much though

Originally posted by BoDiddley
A CB isn't a FS nor should it. If you want a KL CB then great. You shouldn't expect that player to be great in coverage also.



Bo, KL is part of coverage which is why we wanted more power... but tell me how we fix zone CBs if you don't think they need more HP or a new reliable SA? I'm open to suggestions.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
Bo, KL is part of coverage which is why we wanted more power... but tell me how we fix zone CBs if you don't think they need more HP or a new reliable SA? I'm open to suggestions.

You invest in power hitting. There's nothing to "fix" with CBs. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/226829

If you want power hitting then go for it, but it that means other areas will lack as it should be.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
A CB isn't a FS nor should it. If you want a KL CB then great. You shouldn't expect that player to be great in coverage also.

I do agree that CBs cost too much though

I personally was hoping for a small adjustment to zone/man/flex cover traits to make that work with the addition of a new specialist trait to go into the grouping. "Enforcer". Of course all of these would be paired with about a -25% reduction of cost to cb's bringing them to the 2.5-2.8 salary range to start with no money traits.

Here's an example of what some of them would be.

Zone Spec
Zone Awr -10% cost +6 cap
Intercepting -5% cost +3 cap
Man Awr +10% cost -6 cap
Deflecting +5% cost -3 cap
+8% Salary

Man Spec
Man Awr -10% cost +6 cap
Deflecting -5% cost +3 cap
Zone Awr +10% cost -6 cap
Intercepting +5% cost -3 cap
+8% Salary

Flex Coverage
Zone Awr -10% cost -5 cap
Man Awr -10% cost -5 cap
Intercepting -5% cost -5 cap
Deflecting -5% cost -5 cap
+8% Salary

Enforcer
Tackling Tech -10% cost +5 cap
Strip Tech -5% cost +5 cap
Power Tackling -5% cost +5 cap
Pursuit -5% cost +5 cap
Zone Awr +12% cost -5 cap
Man Awr +12% cost -5 cap
Deflecting +5% cost -3 cap
Intercepting +5% cost -3 cap
+10% Salary

Originally posted by BoDiddley
You invest in power hitting. There's nothing to "fix" with CBs. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/226829

If you want power hitting then go for it, but it that means other areas will lack as it should be.

After reading all the data Xars and Ph33p posted, what do you suggest we do then. If we don't need to "fix" CBs and we don't give them a SA, what's the solution?

Originally posted by Adderfist
I personally was hoping for a small adjustment to zone/man/flex cover traits to make that work with the addition of a new specialist trait to go into the grouping. "Enforcer". Of course all of these would be paired with about a -25% reduction of cost to cb's bringing them to the 2.5-2.8 salary range to start with no money traits.

Here's an example of what some of them would be.

Zone Spec
Zone Awr -10% cost +6 cap
Intercepting -5% cost +3 cap
Man Awr +10% cost -6 cap
Deflecting +5% cost -3 cap
+8% Salary

(Invert Zone spec for man spec)

Flex Coverage
Zone Awr -10% cost -6 cap
Man Awr -10% cost -6 cap
Intercepting -5% cost -5 cap
Deflecting -5% cost -5 cap
+8% Salary

Enforcer
Tackling Tech -10% cost +5 cap
Strip Tech -5% cost +5 cap
Power Tackling -5% cost +5 cap
Pursuit -5% cost +5 cap
Zone Awr +12% cost -5 cap
Man Awr +12% cost -5 cap
Deflecting +5% cost -3 cap
Intercepting +5% cost -3 cap
+10% Salary



I think this is a great approach. It allows specialized builds and keeps them balanced

what if i want to make a zone player thats good at deflections?

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
Asking for improved hitting power from CBs to generate more KL is one of the options we discussed to fix zone cbs in discord. Currently LB driven plays are favored because they can get picks far easier than CBs and they generate KL and FF far better as well, the SAs even favor the LBs better (EotP practically guaranteed to fire for LBs but not CBs). It's why I made the comment that CBs are basically overcosted incompetent safeties that bring little to the table to justify their cost, we might as well start carrying the minimal amount and add in dots elsewhere or increase star power in other positions. If not hitting power improved, then they need a SA or two specifically built for them otherwise we are basically forced to keep running LB centric defenses.

Thanks.

Some questions, again no snarkiness.

How many KLs a season do Zone CBs get? How many do LBs get?
How many KLs a season do they need to improve to?

I ask because at some point we need numbers to get an idea of what effect is trying to be achieved.

Also, I know people may shake their heads at this, but....

I added a bunch of Strip Tech to my CBs this past season. I like the results. It's under-powered for sure, but I think it can work with some minor fixes.

Also, in your comments about LB vs CB, what I see is lots of S*LBs (not exclusively) but no S* CBs.

I posted my WR builds for the future. Here are three Man S* CB builds I'm working on tweaking:

http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/44_7764_1634757466.png
http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/44_7794_1634757487.png
http://www.glb2scout.com/vpimages/44_8172_1634757588.png

I think Strip Tech could use a buff. It suffers from lack of firing opportunities versus putting SP into INT for CBs, but it does work - it's just a little under-powered.

Any reason a Strip Tech buff to CBs wouldn't help Zone CBs?

Is one possible answer that Strip Tech gets buffed so that we move the Passing turnovers to the edge plays rather than the LBs?

Across my 4 CBs, Interception averages 67 and Strip Tech averages 67, or so. My CBs averaged 1 Forced Fumble and 6 INTs on the season. Strip Tech costs about 2/3 of the SPs that INT costs. So I should have averaged maybe 4 Forced Fumbles per season on each CB, but actually did 1.

It's just a quick example. Someone can check the results and my thought process.

Anyway, I'm thinking that instead of CBs getting more Power Tackling, they get better results out a Strip Tech - a skill they can take higher (but no one is).

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
After reading all the data Xars and Ph33p posted, what do you suggest we do then. If we don't need to "fix" CBs and we don't give them a SA, what's the solution?

Seems like fixing Base Salary would be a good start.

Originally posted by Xars
I added a bunch of Strip Tech to my CBs this past season. I like the results. It's under-powered some, but I think it can work with some minor fixes.

I'm on this same thought, my cb's have some to increase KL but it's expensive sp wise.

Originally posted by Xars

Also, in your comments about LB vs CB, what I see is lots of S*LBs (not exclusively) but no S* CBs.

All about cost effectiveness. CB's are EXPENSIVE. $8,450,000 for a CB with superstar and no other $ traits. It's $7,325,000 for a superstar LB with a +10% LB trait. there's no arguing about the huge cost difference when you include how much more efficient the LB's are.

Originally posted by Xars

I think Strip Tech could use a buff. It suffers from lack of firing opportunities versus putting SP into INT for CBs, but it does work - it's just a little under-powered.

Any reason a Strip Tech buff to CBs wouldn't help Zone CBs?

Is one possible answer that Strip Tech gets buffed so that we move the Passing turnovers to the edge plays rather than the LBs?


Strip tech could use a buff and it may help some of the issues. One of the problems is it's going to also buff man, even more than zone as the CB is already on top of the WR.

I really want to do a defense with 2 s* CB's and it's just too expensive for what you get.