Warrior General Games

Originally posted by ryanshaw


Obviously, one way to amend (albeit slightly) would be for the sim to severely punish players with unbalanced builds which would reflect the reality of these builds. Then people would at least have a choice - be successful now or later.

It is the fact that slowbuild teams are competitive at lower levels which is the problem.

a well build balanced lower level team will beat down an unbalanced team.

Originally posted by HULK
Originally posted by ijg

better for the RB or better for balance of the sim? Seems like the former...3% would be a lot more balanced.

Oh, better for the RB is how I meant it.

For the game... maybe they should be a counter VA available for defenders. Something like:

Backfield Terror: This defender gets extra amped up if he's got a shot to make a play in the backfield. He gains +4% to make tackle chance and +4% to avoid fake chance if he is across the line of scrimmage.




Personaly, I like this approach better. Its the kinda VA some defenders would take, and some wouldn't. It would be a perfect counter to the new SYM though. I like adding more VAs though. Creates more diversity in the game.

No counter VA, that isn't going to balance anything.

Originally posted by HULK

Originally posted by Bort




Also, changed SYM again:

4% to breaking tackles on inside runs, 4% to fakes and spin on outside runs.


Love this. Now its the ultimate combo back VA, behind the LOS anyways.



Same. As much as I'd love this VA b.c I love combo backs...it isn't helping the game or making the skill less OP'd.

Stop using SYM as a crutch for the rushing game imo, and if you are going to anyway at least lower the % to like 2-3% per level.

Originally posted by RMiller517
if SYM is being changed because backs broke too many tackles in the backfield, shouldn't the % aeq nerf help that a little bit? if its still too powerful, then make it 2% or 3% but keep it how it is. all of these radical changes are nice, but you're definitely going to overcompensate for the problem.

i'm trying to grasp what the problem trying to be corrected here is. is the problem that elusives/combo backs break too many tackles outside, or is it the lack of TFLs on inside rushing the problem? if the problem is "SYM is too powerful in all situations", then you don't keep it as powerful as it is now but change the situations... you make it less powerful but keep the situations where it works.

my powerback had 1 thing last season... one true crutch as far as being a threat to go the distance every time - and that was when he got the ball on a pitch and broke one tackle in the backfield and then outran people. your going to take that away? it was risky anyway (hence the lack of running, even outside rushing, in big games)



Increasing blocking will more than make up for a slight % nerf. It is a crutch for the running game and as far as I can tell it isn't needed anymore. Power Backs will still be able to break tackles on pitches, just not automatic like, only thing I ask is get Elusives a little better but then again how you do that.

Edit: After reading more, its obvious what the problem is. Stop thinking about your HB for once please.

Originally posted by taz20075
7 potential VA changes? I hope we're getting a full reset.



+100

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Same. As much as I'd love this VA b.c I love combo backs...it isn't helping the game or making the skill less OP'd.

Stop using SYM as a crutch for the rushing game imo, and if you are going to anyway at least lower the % to like 2-3% per level.

if they want to help elusive backs...buff Quick Feet...or have Bort turn the fakes back up. I dont understand giving Short Yardage Monster the ultimate Combo Back deal. Combo backs already rule this game as it is.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Increasing blocking will more than make up for a slight % nerf. It is a crutch for the running game and as far as I can tell it isn't needed anymore. Power Backs will still be able to break tackles on pitches, just not automatic like, only thing I ask is get Elusives a little better but then again how you do that.

Edit: After reading more, its obvious what the problem is. Stop thinking about your HB for once please.

my point had nothing to do with my HB, it had to do with what the purpose of SYM was. i was trying to make a point with that post to get an answer, which was answered later in the thread if you read further.

Since we're stuck on it being called Short Yardage Monster, how about we just make it so that it limits the back to making short amounts of yardage?

Short Yardage Monster:
This player focuses on getting those hard to earn yards in short yardage situations. Each level of Short Yardage Monster gives a +4% bonus to breaking tackles when behind the line of scrimmage and not playing QB. However, for each level of Short Yardage Monster, the back will take a penalty of -1 (-2?) to in-game energy when he reaches two (three?) yards beyond the line of scrimmage.

Or

Short Yardage Monster:
This player focuses on getting those hard to earn yards in short yardage situations. Each level of Short Yardage Monster gives a +4% bonus to breaking tackles when behind the line of scrimmage and not playing QB. However, any tackles the back breaks behind the line of scrimmage will give double the energy penalty.

You could even go triple on the second suggestion depending on how the new energy changes work.

Originally posted by jamz
Here's an update for you all:

Originally posted by Bort

Updated relentless pursuit SA to 2 seconds instead of 3




Shouldn't they have done things like this before so many people chose their bonus SA's? Granted 3 seconds was a joke, but testers should have told them that long ago.

Originally posted by Saris
Originally posted by jamz

Here's an update for you all:

Originally posted by Bort


Updated relentless pursuit SA to 2 seconds instead of 3




Shouldn't they have done things like this before so many people chose their bonus SA's? Granted 3 seconds was a joke, but testers should have told them that long ago.

From the game changes discussion forum:

Originally posted by Catch22
Bort and I talked about this and we're going to work something into the new training system we're working on that will let people swap their extra SA (at a training cost).

Originally posted by Sik Wit It
Originally posted by Saris

Originally posted by jamz


Here's an update for you all:

Originally posted by Bort



Updated relentless pursuit SA to 2 seconds instead of 3




Shouldn't they have done things like this before so many people chose their bonus SA's? Granted 3 seconds was a joke, but testers should have told them that long ago.

From the game changes discussion forum:

Originally posted by Catch22

Bort and I talked about this and we're going to work something into the new training system we're working on that will let people swap their extra SA (at a training cost).



It's still crap it wasn't adjusted before release.

Originally posted by Saris
Shouldn't they have done things like this before so many people chose their bonus SA's? Granted 3 seconds was a joke, but testers should have told them that long ago.

Not everything is discussed in detail before it is announced. Honestly, I'm not sure if that was or wasn't, since I tend to focus on testing the things I can and leave the "cooler" stuff for the other testers. Also, shit, testers are human too and miss some stuff. Finally, I guess Catch has stated several times on live that you'll be getting the chance to swap SAs in the new training system he has in mind for ssn 16...Not ideal for those that picked the "wrong" SA (and no one knows if they did yet or not on any of them), but still something

power tackler change =

IMO Bullrusher and Heavyweight were way UNDER-powered.

This apparent thought process confuses me.

Originally posted by Sik Wit It

Ok people who have actually played football at a significant level can correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it take better tackling technique to take down a ballcarrier from the side or the back than the front? It seems to be like that's where tackling should have a greater effect.

I strongly disagree with this. It takes a lot more technique to tackle somebody that's coming straight at you. If they're to the side or in front of you then all you have to do is grab them and pull them down...it's quite easy.

If they're coming straight at you then strength is key in standing them up, stopping their momentum, and maybe pushing them backwards...but to be able to slam into somebody at full speed AND wrap them up and tackle them from head on is a lot tougher to do than to tackle them from an angle. If you just run into them they'll just bounce off of you unless you're a ton bigger than them.

Also, to Chysil's point about tackling...I agree for the most part. However, tackling in rugby & football are more different than one may guess. I've played both sports and I've tackled both 300+ lb props as well as NFL running backs (at the college level). The collisions with and without pads are just different...it's easier to tackle a guy w/o pads head-on b/c it is more about technique and the collisions are usually not as hard; it's easier to tackle a guy with pads from the side or from behind b/c it's easier to grab hold of a guy with pads.

Originally posted by PING72
I strongly disagree with this. It takes a lot more technique to tackle somebody that's coming straight at you. If they're to the side or in front of you then all you have to do is grab them and pull them down...it's quite easy.

If they're coming straight at you then strength is key in standing them up, stopping their momentum, and maybe pushing them backwards...but to be able to slam into somebody at full speed AND wrap them up and tackle them from head on is a lot tougher to do than to tackle them from an angle. If you just run into them they'll just bounce off of you unless you're a ton bigger than them.

Also, to Chysil's point about tackling...I agree for the most part. However, tackling in rugby & football are more different than one may guess. I've played both sports and I've tackled both 300+ lb props as well as NFL running backs (at the college level). The collisions with and without pads are just different...it's easier to tackle a guy w/o pads head-on b/c it is more about technique and the collisions are usually not as hard; it's easier to tackle a guy with pads from the side or from behind b/c it's easier to grab hold of a guy with pads.

There is more than strength involved in this. It's creating leverage to stand them up, or being talented enough to take out the legs without having them jump over you. For example, Champ Bailey is not the strongest guy on the field, but he is a very consistent tackler of all types of ball carriers because he is a talented tackler that can create leverage and also go for the legs with consistent success. I think this is what the 'tackling' attribute is for and IMO, 'tackling' as an attribute in GLB has been WAY under-valued. There are plenty of strong guys who suck at tackling.