Can you select a depth chart for each offensive formation like you can on defense? My is showing only (Default) All Formations and Goaline. I thought you could but I don't see it now.
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Game Help > Offensive Depth Chart
TehKyou
offline
offline
No, it was apparently too powerful on the test server when they tried that. I know I'd be abusing the hell out of it as an OC
I've been fairly successful with putting my rQB in the GL DC and running only GL QB rushes. He is in first for the OMvP.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/11812
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/11812
Originally posted by DeeVee8
I've been fairly successful with putting my rQB in the GL DC and running only GL QB rushes. He is in first for the OMvP.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/11812
This is what made it OP during testing. You could tailor specific depth charts for specific plays in specific formations. Defenses can't really counter. As (I believe) Corndog pointed out previously offense controls the flow of the game and defenses react. That's why there are slightly expanded defensive options.
I've been fairly successful with putting my rQB in the GL DC and running only GL QB rushes. He is in first for the OMvP.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/11812
This is what made it OP during testing. You could tailor specific depth charts for specific plays in specific formations. Defenses can't really counter. As (I believe) Corndog pointed out previously offense controls the flow of the game and defenses react. That's why there are slightly expanded defensive options.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
This is what made it OP during testing. You could tailor specific depth charts for specific plays in specific formations. Defenses can't really counter. As (I believe) Corndog pointed out previously offense controls the flow of the game and defenses react. That's why there are slightly expanded defensive options.
And even using the GL DC doesn't work a lot of the time. My passing QB is thrown in there occasionally even though my rQB is the only one in the GL QB spot.
This is what made it OP during testing. You could tailor specific depth charts for specific plays in specific formations. Defenses can't really counter. As (I believe) Corndog pointed out previously offense controls the flow of the game and defenses react. That's why there are slightly expanded defensive options.
And even using the GL DC doesn't work a lot of the time. My passing QB is thrown in there occasionally even though my rQB is the only one in the GL QB spot.
Edited by DeeVee8 on Dec 30, 2013 10:08:20
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
This is what made it OP during testing. You could tailor specific depth charts for specific plays in specific formations. Defenses can't really counter. As (I believe) Corndog pointed out previously offense controls the flow of the game and defenses react. That's why there are slightly expanded defensive options.
What makes it OP is there isn't a quality way to react to it. 2 WR for instance was near impossible to defend between the 4 different formations. The only quality way to defend it would have been to change defense to be set up by Offense Formation and Bort didn't want it set up that way.
This is what made it OP during testing. You could tailor specific depth charts for specific plays in specific formations. Defenses can't really counter. As (I believe) Corndog pointed out previously offense controls the flow of the game and defenses react. That's why there are slightly expanded defensive options.
What makes it OP is there isn't a quality way to react to it. 2 WR for instance was near impossible to defend between the 4 different formations. The only quality way to defend it would have been to change defense to be set up by Offense Formation and Bort didn't want it set up that way.
Originally posted by bhall43
What makes it OP is there isn't a quality way to react to it. 2 WR for instance was near impossible to defend between the 4 different formations. The only quality way to defend it would have been to change defense to be set up by Offense Formation and Bort didn't want it set up that way.
Even that wasn't really a quality way to react to it. Teams could still just swap from using Strong I with all pass personnel to using all rush personnel by switching playbooks, and the defense would be left with their pants down.
We wanted gameplanning to be more about anticipating what their players can do and reacting to it with your players, not just hoping the other team happens to use their Strong I rush playbook instead of their Strong I pass playbook.
What makes it OP is there isn't a quality way to react to it. 2 WR for instance was near impossible to defend between the 4 different formations. The only quality way to defend it would have been to change defense to be set up by Offense Formation and Bort didn't want it set up that way.
Even that wasn't really a quality way to react to it. Teams could still just swap from using Strong I with all pass personnel to using all rush personnel by switching playbooks, and the defense would be left with their pants down.
We wanted gameplanning to be more about anticipating what their players can do and reacting to it with your players, not just hoping the other team happens to use their Strong I rush playbook instead of their Strong I pass playbook.
Originally posted by Corndog
We wanted gameplanning to be more about anticipating what their players can do and reacting to it with your players, not just hoping the other team happens to use their Strong I rush playbook instead of their Strong I pass playbook.
A "weighted" playbook could've fixed that, tbh. Limit offenses to a set number of plays (say 50). When the season starts, those 50 plays are 100% effective. If you swap out a play the new play comes in at 0% effective and increases for each game its used. Plays that are removed lose effectiveness for each game they're out of the playbook. Opposing teams can see your playbook and plays are visible once they've been used in a game. You could surprise a team with play you've never used but the 0% efficiency modifier would severely limit its usefulness.
In short, play efficiency would be like Chemistry for plays.
We wanted gameplanning to be more about anticipating what their players can do and reacting to it with your players, not just hoping the other team happens to use their Strong I rush playbook instead of their Strong I pass playbook.
A "weighted" playbook could've fixed that, tbh. Limit offenses to a set number of plays (say 50). When the season starts, those 50 plays are 100% effective. If you swap out a play the new play comes in at 0% effective and increases for each game its used. Plays that are removed lose effectiveness for each game they're out of the playbook. Opposing teams can see your playbook and plays are visible once they've been used in a game. You could surprise a team with play you've never used but the 0% efficiency modifier would severely limit its usefulness.
In short, play efficiency would be like Chemistry for plays.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
