Fixing coverage (cbs making 225-270 degree turns instead of 45-90 degree turns) probably resolves a lot of issues with pass defense. BSB runs a fairly diverse PB offensively (typically 15 plays in each section offensively) as is. I like running variety though. Effectiveness is what causes me to lean more heavily on certain plays though.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > Season 30 Wishlist, let's get it started early!
Myrik_Justiciar
offline
offline
Eh, I can live with a bigger bonus if the other option doesn't work... but passing has got to be fixed.
Sov.
offline
offline
Originally posted by jakedood
I like the gameplanning as it is right now, as if you spam plays but get caught out, it can ruin the game for you, there is a risk to it as well for sure
Originally posted by McLovinCowboys
I partially agree, this was specially true on the outside rushing meta, like if a team went strong side 2 WR heavy and the defense used 4-3 cb blitz, or bi counter sweep left only against 5-2 2 base, but passing doesn't really counter plays, i tried a lot of specialized plays against AA, i watched replays, carefully placed the depth chart to have good matchups, the closest we got was 47-57, yeah we got nerfed by balance and the other season we only had 3 CBs, but still...
exactly, its easy to counter "balanced" teams, its not easy to counter specialized teams who are built specifically to run a few certain plays.
different teams have exposed different areas of the game over over 30 seasons, from AA with the 4WR/5WR, stunners with GL sweeps, mysterios teams with the QB sweeps, air raid/logzilla with TE drive, etc. nothing against any of those teams for finding a niche and exploiting it - but if there were a penalty like i suggested they could choose to proceed with the same playbook and live with the stacking penalty or they could choose to diversify the playbook and priorities more to avoid the stacking penalty. either choice balances the game to a more even playing field.
the "diversity penalty" can be designed in a way to only penalize teams trying to abuse certain plays, not all teams across the board, as that seems to be the main concern with adding an element like this.
Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I'd say on offense increase the minimum play count while upping frequency minimum to 2 instead of 1...
Fix pass coverage (coverage settings is a good idea like tight or loose) & interceptions again so everyone stops looking like Joe Montana and man coverage CB's can get picks again...
Fix blitzing at high lvls and more blitz packages...
Lastly, more plays (especially on defense).
agreed except for the playbook minimums. i would be a fan of changing priorities from 1-5 stars to 1-3 stars, that would keep everything relatively the same but fix the "gap" between high priority (5) and low priority (1) plays.
Originally posted by Xars
It's a double edged sword.
In some cases, it would prevent 5 play spam.
In other cases, it would force Balanced teams into running too many plays that aren't effective for their rosters. After all, there is a Diversity bonus and if it actually had an effect, people would already be running 40+ different plays per game. They don't today, yet could. When I tested running 30+ different plays, no noticeable improvement existed.
You don't need to change the playbook minimum; You need to increase the Diversity bonus.
agree 100% with playbook minimum staying as-is. i also agree on increasing the diversity bonus or at least an explanation on exactly how it works and what causes it to occur or not.
I like the gameplanning as it is right now, as if you spam plays but get caught out, it can ruin the game for you, there is a risk to it as well for sure
Originally posted by McLovinCowboys
I partially agree, this was specially true on the outside rushing meta, like if a team went strong side 2 WR heavy and the defense used 4-3 cb blitz, or bi counter sweep left only against 5-2 2 base, but passing doesn't really counter plays, i tried a lot of specialized plays against AA, i watched replays, carefully placed the depth chart to have good matchups, the closest we got was 47-57, yeah we got nerfed by balance and the other season we only had 3 CBs, but still...
exactly, its easy to counter "balanced" teams, its not easy to counter specialized teams who are built specifically to run a few certain plays.
different teams have exposed different areas of the game over over 30 seasons, from AA with the 4WR/5WR, stunners with GL sweeps, mysterios teams with the QB sweeps, air raid/logzilla with TE drive, etc. nothing against any of those teams for finding a niche and exploiting it - but if there were a penalty like i suggested they could choose to proceed with the same playbook and live with the stacking penalty or they could choose to diversify the playbook and priorities more to avoid the stacking penalty. either choice balances the game to a more even playing field.
the "diversity penalty" can be designed in a way to only penalize teams trying to abuse certain plays, not all teams across the board, as that seems to be the main concern with adding an element like this.
Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I'd say on offense increase the minimum play count while upping frequency minimum to 2 instead of 1...
Fix pass coverage (coverage settings is a good idea like tight or loose) & interceptions again so everyone stops looking like Joe Montana and man coverage CB's can get picks again...
Fix blitzing at high lvls and more blitz packages...
Lastly, more plays (especially on defense).
agreed except for the playbook minimums. i would be a fan of changing priorities from 1-5 stars to 1-3 stars, that would keep everything relatively the same but fix the "gap" between high priority (5) and low priority (1) plays.
Originally posted by Xars
It's a double edged sword.
In some cases, it would prevent 5 play spam.
In other cases, it would force Balanced teams into running too many plays that aren't effective for their rosters. After all, there is a Diversity bonus and if it actually had an effect, people would already be running 40+ different plays per game. They don't today, yet could. When I tested running 30+ different plays, no noticeable improvement existed.
You don't need to change the playbook minimum; You need to increase the Diversity bonus.
agree 100% with playbook minimum staying as-is. i also agree on increasing the diversity bonus or at least an explanation on exactly how it works and what causes it to occur or not.
Myrik_Justiciar
offline
offline
Call me frustrated... Pretty much everyone is running between the tackles now cuz of no outside rushing ability, and everyone throws underneath all day in these almost unstoppable high comp % offenses that rarely throw picks in man coverage 
Edited by Myrik_Justiciar on Feb 23, 2018 13:47:12
Edited by Myrik_Justiciar on Feb 23, 2018 13:44:25
bhall43
offline
offline
Ya, passing is straight up broken. This guy has one INT and 9 PD's FOR A CAREER and hes in pro now. lol
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/280169
That is a build that used to get at least 4 or 5 INT's in a season.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/280169
That is a build that used to get at least 4 or 5 INT's in a season.
bhall43
offline
offline
I know I know. He needs 30 more sprinting, 50 more quickness, 55 more balance, 10 more footwork, 54 more pursuit, 28 more deflect, 47 more Zone awareness, 71 more cover tech, 56 more intercepting, 50+ more conditioning, 73 more jumping, 80 more toughness and heart, a butt load of defensive consistency, and 100% more will to win.
Bretto007
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Ya, passing is straight up broken. This guy has one INT and 9 PD's FOR A CAREER and hes in pro now. lol
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/280169
That is a build that used to get at least 4 or 5 INT's in a season.
Just because something used to work doesn't mean it is always going to work as they continue to adjust things. Also, I don't know that comparing PUPs to active players on active teams is comparing apples to apples.
This guy on my roster has 6 Ints and 13 PDs in 15 games at the pro level. The biggest differences are his Coverage Tech, Consistency, and Heart skills are significantly higher than your guy.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/271923
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bretto007
Just because something used to work doesn't mean it is always going to work as they continue to adjust things. Also, I don't know that comparing PUPs to active players on active teams is comparing apples to apples.
This guy on my roster has 6 Ints and 13 PDs in 15 games at the pro level. The biggest differences are his Coverage Tech, Consistency, and Heart skills are significantly higher than your guy.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/271923
What I am saying is that it didn't even matter before whether he was a PUP guy or not. That build still would perform really well. 9 PD's and 1 INT in over 3 tiers of play is pretty ridiculous.
Just because something used to work doesn't mean it is always going to work as they continue to adjust things. Also, I don't know that comparing PUPs to active players on active teams is comparing apples to apples.
This guy on my roster has 6 Ints and 13 PDs in 15 games at the pro level. The biggest differences are his Coverage Tech, Consistency, and Heart skills are significantly higher than your guy.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/271923
What I am saying is that it didn't even matter before whether he was a PUP guy or not. That build still would perform really well. 9 PD's and 1 INT in over 3 tiers of play is pretty ridiculous.
bhall43
offline
offline
latest blunder. Cool 360 bro...
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/534758/1107093?player_id=280169
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/534758/1107093?player_id=280169
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
