Possible VA removals/changes.
Discussion began: 2/12/10
Current post tally in thread: 115
*Note - A concurrent discussion is taking place to review ideas for new "Archetype-specific SA's".
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
► From Mat McBriar’s “Sunday Snapshot” 2/14/10:
Possible VA removals/changes -
This threads aim is to discuss potential VAs that could be removed/changed based upon the new archetypes. Consider this a giant debate on what VAs are effective, not effective, and overly effective.
► Current status:
Discussion is ongoing, with no decision on any change imminent. Much of it has turned to Short Yardage Monster, David vs. Goliath, and the +% AEQ stacking limits that will be put in place for Season 15, but some of the discussion has stayed more broad about the role of VA's in general and their contribution to build diversity. One tester offered comments on the entire list of current VA's, I'll include that in post #2 of this thread.
► Some quotes from the discussion:
Originally posted by Catch22
Again, just discussion (feel free to add some if you can think of any) on potential VA's that could be removed/changed based upon the new archetypes. The only one for sure that I know we are pretty sure about is Scat Back. The others are open for interpretation.
Blocking Back - we have a blocking FB archetype, only problem I see is some HB's might want to use this, so change it to Blocking Halfback and make it only available to HB's. (could convert to archetype specific SA for Blocking FB)
Hail Mary (convert to Deep Passer archetype specific SA)
Pass Blocker and Pass Rusher
Scat Back (could convert to archetype specific SA for scat back archetypes, probably at a reduced level if we do this)
Zone Specialist (if anything we convert this to the archetype specific SA for the ZS archetype)
Bull Rusher (could convert to archetype specific SA for Strength DL archetypes)
Technique Man (could convert to archetype specific SA for Speed DL archetypes - remove agility requirement)
--
Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Tester
I'm confused, we talking about converting VA's into SA's or removing the duplication? Like Scat Back (VA) is similair to Route Run (SA)
Removing VA's completely (Scat Back) or removing a VA and converting it to an archetype specific SA.
Originally posted by Catch22
we'll probably just get rid of Scat Back and come up some type of custom archetype SA that makes sense.
--
Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Tester
Originally posted by Catch22
really don't think we need MORE VA's. Part of the problems we've had with game balance is introducing too many VA's.
For some positions, I severely disagree.
There's no such thing as a VA for many types of player focuses (inside blocking, for instance) and there's some positions which, as [tester] pointed out, have VERY few choices. I mean look at the O-line list again:
GL Blocker
Pulling Lineman
Pass Blocker
Showboat Blocker
There's so few that, even with Pulling Lineman, almost every lineman is going to have the same set of VA's. That defeats the purpose of VA's, to actually force a choice on players and differentiate themselves.
for some positions - I agree more are needed, we just need to make sure they aren't going to throw the sim out of whack (meaning ummm actually test them more than 1 day before releasing them?)
--
Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Tester
Originally posted by Catch22
[...] pretty much all of my linemen have Workout Warrior and Great Blocker as their two primary VA's. I do occasionally use Showboat Blocker though but almost never use GL Blocker or Pass Blocker.
And I hope you see that as an issue, if you use the same exact ones no matter what
yea it means the other ones suck lol. Of course it's an issue. Especially for OL/DL. It's pretty much automatic what VA's I choose for those positions.
Originally posted by Tester
For O-line, almost everyone at high levels is using Great Blocker and Workout Warrior
The VAs that fill out the chain are generally some combination of:
Heart of a Champion
Pass Blocker
Quick
Showboat Blocker
Stonewall
Streaky
Clutch used to be an occasional choice but I think Stonewall and the S13 sim mostly killed it.
RZ Freak, GL Blocker are fairly rare I think.
Pulling Guard and Outside Blocker are used by a few teams that want to run the two or three plays where it's meaningful.
That's been my experience at least.
Originally posted by Tester
Is there any chance that we could considerably increase the effects of some of these, but limit them to 5 per player?
I would take Goal Line Blocker (for instance) if it only cost 5 points for the full effect.
There are several of these that have a decent enough effect but the window of usefulness is so narrow that it's just not worth considering.
Originally posted by Tester
I was going to suggest 3 tiers based on how often they activate, with stuff that's rare being capped at 5, most of the stuff that isn't rare but isn't usually active capped at 10, and everything else (including some of the situational stuff still) capped at 15. But simpler might be better.
--
Originally posted by Tester
[...]SYM doesn't sit great with me, but especially since the AEQ changes next season will be a nerf to power backs, I'm not convinced it should be changed.
Originally posted by Tester
the BT% AEQ reduction will make a difference. If everything else stays the same for the defense, it is a much more even playing field.
Originally posted by Tester
I would also submit that the other effect of nerfing % stacks is that D-linemen will quite likely start packing at least 1 piece of make tackle % gear instead of a full stack of break block.
So...Break Tackle % is nerfed and incentive is provided for Make Tackle % for the D-line. That's already a pretty big swing. Adding a nerf to SYM on top of that is a pretty dramatic shift in the balance of inside running.
Originally posted by Tester
[...] For those that believe that % make tackle can be useful to counter SYM, the fear is that DL are becoming better tacklers behind the LOS, while power backs are losing their ability to break tackles at the same time.
I'm not sold that it will be a big issue. I don't think DL have problems making tackles now unless they are diving or being blocked, but that opinion is not likely held by the majority of GLB or the majority of those competing in the top leagues.
IMO - the players power backs need to worry about if SYM bonus is reduced are LBs and Ss with DvG. If DvG bonus is reduced as well, it should be a wash behind the LOS with power backs breaking more tackles beyond the LOS.
Originally posted by Tester
What is it going to do with the new archetypes, though? 140 strength PBs could become pretttttty powerful.
Originally posted by Tester
true, but tkling is also going to be higher
Originally posted by Tester
There are PBs with high 130s now, and they are not the real threats (for the most part). I don't think things will change that much. Break Tackle% stacks are much more devastating than NT strength super-steroid power backs.
Originally posted by Tester
Really? On who? I guess LBs. It's not going to be on D-linemen.
Originally posted by Tester
DBs, too.
Originally posted by Tester
Eh, that remains to be seen what archetypes will be used.
On the flip side, DT's will be worse tacklers, losing both Strength and Tackling ALGs.
Originally posted by Tester
[...]And it's undeniable that the new DT archetype will be worse tacklers than what we have now. I'm willing to bet that the LBs predominantly built will be, too.
Especially if things like DvG are left alone, which lets the LBs continue to focus on other things a bit more.
Originally posted by Tester
Your comments on DTs seem to make perfect sense when looking at the new ALGs, and are easliy confirmed by looking at the archetype roster.
LBs I think could go either way.
--
Originally posted by Tester
Originally posted by Tester
It's a band-aid. Are VAs really there so we can make basic things in the sim function?
This is the point upon which we agree...it is something of a band-aid.
At the end of the day, you are making an argument for more realism...much more of a stalemate at the LOS and a little less uberness (or a lot less even) from HBs.
But as it is, the D-line is reasonably happy because they are actually tossing folks around and making an impact, the HBs are happy because they can generally be effective despite the somewhat porous O-line, and even O-line is fairly happy because the Pancakes are up.
So...while it doesn't necessarily look like "real football," and the mechanism for SYM leads to certain silliness on LB blitzing strategy at times (and also prevents hyper-aggressive blitzing which would be pretty devastating without SYM I think)....
at the end of the day, I can at least make the argument that the "fun meter" AND game balance are about right, even if the "realism meter" is a little off.
Discussion began: 2/12/10
Current post tally in thread: 115
*Note - A concurrent discussion is taking place to review ideas for new "Archetype-specific SA's".
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
► From Mat McBriar’s “Sunday Snapshot” 2/14/10:
Possible VA removals/changes -
This threads aim is to discuss potential VAs that could be removed/changed based upon the new archetypes. Consider this a giant debate on what VAs are effective, not effective, and overly effective.
► Current status:
Discussion is ongoing, with no decision on any change imminent. Much of it has turned to Short Yardage Monster, David vs. Goliath, and the +% AEQ stacking limits that will be put in place for Season 15, but some of the discussion has stayed more broad about the role of VA's in general and their contribution to build diversity. One tester offered comments on the entire list of current VA's, I'll include that in post #2 of this thread.
► Some quotes from the discussion:
Originally posted by Catch22
Again, just discussion (feel free to add some if you can think of any) on potential VA's that could be removed/changed based upon the new archetypes. The only one for sure that I know we are pretty sure about is Scat Back. The others are open for interpretation.
Blocking Back - we have a blocking FB archetype, only problem I see is some HB's might want to use this, so change it to Blocking Halfback and make it only available to HB's. (could convert to archetype specific SA for Blocking FB)
Hail Mary (convert to Deep Passer archetype specific SA)
Pass Blocker and Pass Rusher
Scat Back (could convert to archetype specific SA for scat back archetypes, probably at a reduced level if we do this)
Zone Specialist (if anything we convert this to the archetype specific SA for the ZS archetype)
Bull Rusher (could convert to archetype specific SA for Strength DL archetypes)
Technique Man (could convert to archetype specific SA for Speed DL archetypes - remove agility requirement)
--
Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Tester
I'm confused, we talking about converting VA's into SA's or removing the duplication? Like Scat Back (VA) is similair to Route Run (SA)
Removing VA's completely (Scat Back) or removing a VA and converting it to an archetype specific SA.
Originally posted by Catch22
we'll probably just get rid of Scat Back and come up some type of custom archetype SA that makes sense.
--
Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Tester
Originally posted by Catch22
really don't think we need MORE VA's. Part of the problems we've had with game balance is introducing too many VA's.
For some positions, I severely disagree.
There's no such thing as a VA for many types of player focuses (inside blocking, for instance) and there's some positions which, as [tester] pointed out, have VERY few choices. I mean look at the O-line list again:
GL Blocker
Pulling Lineman
Pass Blocker
Showboat Blocker
There's so few that, even with Pulling Lineman, almost every lineman is going to have the same set of VA's. That defeats the purpose of VA's, to actually force a choice on players and differentiate themselves.
for some positions - I agree more are needed, we just need to make sure they aren't going to throw the sim out of whack (meaning ummm actually test them more than 1 day before releasing them?)
--
Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Tester
Originally posted by Catch22
[...] pretty much all of my linemen have Workout Warrior and Great Blocker as their two primary VA's. I do occasionally use Showboat Blocker though but almost never use GL Blocker or Pass Blocker.
And I hope you see that as an issue, if you use the same exact ones no matter what
yea it means the other ones suck lol. Of course it's an issue. Especially for OL/DL. It's pretty much automatic what VA's I choose for those positions.
Originally posted by Tester
For O-line, almost everyone at high levels is using Great Blocker and Workout Warrior
The VAs that fill out the chain are generally some combination of:
Heart of a Champion
Pass Blocker
Quick
Showboat Blocker
Stonewall
Streaky
Clutch used to be an occasional choice but I think Stonewall and the S13 sim mostly killed it.
RZ Freak, GL Blocker are fairly rare I think.
Pulling Guard and Outside Blocker are used by a few teams that want to run the two or three plays where it's meaningful.
That's been my experience at least.
Originally posted by Tester
Is there any chance that we could considerably increase the effects of some of these, but limit them to 5 per player?
I would take Goal Line Blocker (for instance) if it only cost 5 points for the full effect.
There are several of these that have a decent enough effect but the window of usefulness is so narrow that it's just not worth considering.
Originally posted by Tester
I was going to suggest 3 tiers based on how often they activate, with stuff that's rare being capped at 5, most of the stuff that isn't rare but isn't usually active capped at 10, and everything else (including some of the situational stuff still) capped at 15. But simpler might be better.
--
Originally posted by Tester
[...]SYM doesn't sit great with me, but especially since the AEQ changes next season will be a nerf to power backs, I'm not convinced it should be changed.
Originally posted by Tester
the BT% AEQ reduction will make a difference. If everything else stays the same for the defense, it is a much more even playing field.
Originally posted by Tester
I would also submit that the other effect of nerfing % stacks is that D-linemen will quite likely start packing at least 1 piece of make tackle % gear instead of a full stack of break block.
So...Break Tackle % is nerfed and incentive is provided for Make Tackle % for the D-line. That's already a pretty big swing. Adding a nerf to SYM on top of that is a pretty dramatic shift in the balance of inside running.
Originally posted by Tester
[...] For those that believe that % make tackle can be useful to counter SYM, the fear is that DL are becoming better tacklers behind the LOS, while power backs are losing their ability to break tackles at the same time.
I'm not sold that it will be a big issue. I don't think DL have problems making tackles now unless they are diving or being blocked, but that opinion is not likely held by the majority of GLB or the majority of those competing in the top leagues.
IMO - the players power backs need to worry about if SYM bonus is reduced are LBs and Ss with DvG. If DvG bonus is reduced as well, it should be a wash behind the LOS with power backs breaking more tackles beyond the LOS.
Originally posted by Tester
What is it going to do with the new archetypes, though? 140 strength PBs could become pretttttty powerful.
Originally posted by Tester
true, but tkling is also going to be higher
Originally posted by Tester
There are PBs with high 130s now, and they are not the real threats (for the most part). I don't think things will change that much. Break Tackle% stacks are much more devastating than NT strength super-steroid power backs.
Originally posted by Tester
Really? On who? I guess LBs. It's not going to be on D-linemen.
Originally posted by Tester
DBs, too.
Originally posted by Tester
Eh, that remains to be seen what archetypes will be used.
On the flip side, DT's will be worse tacklers, losing both Strength and Tackling ALGs.
Originally posted by Tester
[...]And it's undeniable that the new DT archetype will be worse tacklers than what we have now. I'm willing to bet that the LBs predominantly built will be, too.
Especially if things like DvG are left alone, which lets the LBs continue to focus on other things a bit more.
Originally posted by Tester
Your comments on DTs seem to make perfect sense when looking at the new ALGs, and are easliy confirmed by looking at the archetype roster.
LBs I think could go either way.
--
Originally posted by Tester
Originally posted by Tester
It's a band-aid. Are VAs really there so we can make basic things in the sim function?
This is the point upon which we agree...it is something of a band-aid.
At the end of the day, you are making an argument for more realism...much more of a stalemate at the LOS and a little less uberness (or a lot less even) from HBs.
But as it is, the D-line is reasonably happy because they are actually tossing folks around and making an impact, the HBs are happy because they can generally be effective despite the somewhat porous O-line, and even O-line is fairly happy because the Pancakes are up.
So...while it doesn't necessarily look like "real football," and the mechanism for SYM leads to certain silliness on LB blitzing strategy at times (and also prevents hyper-aggressive blitzing which would be pretty devastating without SYM I think)....
at the end of the day, I can at least make the argument that the "fun meter" AND game balance are about right, even if the "realism meter" is a little off.
Edited by turnit643 on Feb 18, 2010 02:16:21
As long as Spin isn't overpowered, this one is fine.
