User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Bugs > Coverage Settings in C2 Man Are Borked
Homage
offline
Link
 
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/3152/319954

You should probably have the MLB take the coverage strongside instead of having the ROLB come ALL THE WAY from the other side to take on the FB.
 
Homage
offline
Link
 
Does it right here... but different play.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/3152/320429

I am assuming it's assigned by position instead of route.

Why? Either give us the option of adjusting these coverage assignments for our LB's or adjust it accordingly please.
 
Jampy2.0
thuggin'
offline
Link
 
fix linebackers having to cross field to catch weak/strong assignments to a better positioned defender
 
Homage
offline
Link
 
apparently no response from DB?

sad
 
Corndog
Admin
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Homage
apparently no response from DB?

sad


Bort's the only one that can fix the plays on the live server.
 
Homage
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Corndog
Bort's the only one that can fix the plays on the live server.


 
Jampy2.0
thuggin'
offline
Link
 
Cover 2 is fked
 
bhall43
offline
Link
 
Ya thats pretty bad.
 
bhall43
offline
Link
 
I still contend that defense shouldn't go by # of WR's and should go by formation because the 2 WR formations are quite a bit different between Strong I, Weak I, and Pro Set.
 
-Phaytle-
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Homage
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/3152/319954

You should probably have the MLB take the coverage strongside instead of having the ROLB come ALL THE WAY from the other side to take on the FB.


But if the FB ran a route to the other side of the field there would be no crossing. The problem is coverage is determined before the snap, so the LB covers who he is assigned, whether that received runs a route across the field or not, instead of the route on his side of the field.

On the other hand, maybe it is coded right and your LBs just have crappy man awareness?
 
o The Boss x
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by bhall43
I still contend that defense shouldn't go by # of WR's and should go by formation because the 2 WR formations are quite a bit different between Strong I, Weak I, and Pro Set.


yes.
 
Homage
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
But if the FB ran a route to the other side of the field there would be no crossing. The problem is coverage is determined before the snap, so the LB covers who he is assigned, whether that received runs a route across the field or not, instead of the route on his side of the field.

On the other hand, maybe it is coded right and your LBs just have crappy man awareness?


It's not coded that way. This has happened multiple times... and man awareness has nothing to do with that. Additionally, nothing you said is any different from what was stated prior... thanks for your "input".
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.