Warrior General Games

I know youve heard this before, but it still sucks so lets change this. Give us a system, whether by tagging plays or changing it to work more like the offensive matrix, that allows us to control what plays are called against what offensive sets on what down and distance, but also allows us to use multiple plays with the same designations (short, med, long,blitz etc) in the same situations with control over where they fire. Is this really too difficult to understand?

I hate the current system and dislike the tags.

I'd rather have it set to call by priority vs WR Sets (like now but without tags), which is what I do already.

But regardless, the current system sucks.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I'd rather have it set to call by priority vs WR Sets (like now but without tags), which is what I do already.

The current system is hardly ideal but I really don't think doing away with tags altogether is the best solution: some plays might work in multiple situations but there's also plays which are most definitely situational - you wouldn't want to be calling DE flats on 3rd and short for example. Likewise there's also a few teams I can think of which like to use middle overload exclusively in short situations which obviously isn't a viable approach with a pure priority based system.

Best solution imo would be the ability to change tags: we all know there are certain plays which actually work better in situations other than 'as advertised' so to speak - two examples immediately off the top of my head: Nickel 3-3-5 C1 Double Lurk is listed as 'pass man defense' but is actually pretty meh vs. the pass and works better vs. outside run, 4-3 Under Fire Man is advertised as an inside run play but is fairly mediocre vs. the inside run (and this actually applies to a lot of the inside run plays on defense with the obvious exception of middle overload) against the pass/outside run however it can be decent.

Adding the ability to change tags enables the people who want to actually use different plays in different situations to continue doing so (and do so more effectively) while also allowing those such as yourself who would prefer to call purely by priority to do so (i.e. simply set all the tags to the same).

I've kind of gotten used to the quirks of the defensive tactics matrix by now but I can absolutely appreciate why it frustrates a lot of people: I have absolutely no idea how easy tag changing would be to program but if possible it definitely strikes me as the most preferable option.

I think the ability to change tags is the only real solution at this point. It's not perfect but I think everyone could live with it and it would be a huge improvement over the current mess.

Originally posted by redoct
The current system is hardly ideal but I really don't think doing away with tags altogether is the best solution: some plays might work in multiple situations but there's also plays which are most definitely situational - you wouldn't want to be calling DE flats on 3rd and short for example. Likewise there's also a few teams I can think of which like to use middle overload exclusively in short situations which obviously isn't a viable approach with a pure priority based system.

Best solution imo would be the ability to change tags: we all know there are certain plays which actually work better in situations other than 'as advertised' so to speak - two examples immediately off the top of my head: Nickel 3-3-5 C1 Double Lurk is listed as 'pass man defense' but is actually pretty meh vs. the pass and works better vs. outside run, 4-3 Under Fire Man is advertised as an inside run play but is fairly mediocre vs. the inside run (and this actually applies to a lot of the inside run plays on defense with the obvious exception of middle overload) against the pass/outside run however it can be decent.

Adding the ability to change tags enables the people who want to actually use different plays in different situations to continue doing so (and do so more effectively) while also allowing those such as yourself who would prefer to call purely by priority to do so (i.e. simply set all the tags to the same).

I've kind of gotten used to the quirks of the defensive tactics matrix by now but I can absolutely appreciate why it frustrates a lot of people: I have absolutely no idea how easy tag changing would be to program but if possible it definitely strikes me as the most preferable option.

I ignore tags and have had a top defense for almost 2 years just using priority alone.

As far as not wanting to call DE Flats on 3rd and short, then you're mistaken... there are teams who will toss to the outside in that situation and that play will work well vs many passing plays too.

But if you all need tags, that's fine, but I've learned to ignore them and did just fine myself.

The suggestion to call a play via down and distance sounds great, but also sounds like it would take longer to game plan.

Regardless how its changed (if it does), it needs to be simpler and more versatile.

I need tags and options. The only reason I use priority is because I am forced to.

If I know a team is going to run a dive on 3rd and very short why would I want a DE flat play? Maybe I want to call a short blitz on first down to stop an outside run with my run stoppers in and a long play on 3rd and long with my cover guys in.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I ignore tags and have had a top defense for almost 2 years just using priority alone.

And I use tags and could say the same thing (edit: well not 2 years since I haven't been around that long but for the past three seasons it would be a reasonably accurate statement). Point is there's no right or wrong way to do it: both ways work and in an ideal world both options should be available.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
As far as not wanting to call DE Flats on 3rd and short, then you're mistaken... there are teams who will toss to the outside in that situation and that play will work well vs many passing plays too.

Fair enough. I don't think it's a particularly advisable strategy but each unto their own.

The point is under the current system if I wanted to defend 2WR by running 4-3 Man QB Spy 70% and 4-4 ZEB 30% on 1st down but Run Nickel 3-3-5 Man Base 50% and Nickel 3-3-5 Over Will Mike Blitz 1 50% against against the same set on 3rd and long, I cant do it. But If you let me Tag the 2 Nickel 3-3-5 Plays as Medium then I could. I have that kind of control on offense, but not on defense. Its mind numbingly simple, all we want is control of what plays we call and the ability to run complex defenses that include more than a couple few plays per formation.

Best change they could make atm IMO.

Originally posted by Jagat0r
The point is under the current system if I wanted to defend 2WR by running 4-3 Man QB Spy 70% and 4-4 ZEB 30% on 1st down but Run Nickel 3-3-5 Man Base 50% and Nickel 3-3-5 Over Will Mike Blitz 1 50% against against the same set on 3rd and long, I cant do it. But If you let me Tag the 2 Nickel 3-3-5 Plays as Medium then I could. I have that kind of control on offense, but not on defense. Its mind numbingly simple, all we want is control of what plays we call and the ability to run complex defenses that include more than a couple few plays per formation.

Hmm, that sounds reasonable when put that way.