Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Chysil
I hate to ask, but there are several changes here which might strongly effect how a build is going to lay out in the future.


particularly the "relentless pursuit" update. I remember telling my team I wasn't getting it because "3 seconds is too long, by then I'm off the block or the QB has thrown it already"

now that it's 2 seconds... I'd probably entertain the thought on my DE, problem is: I already selected balance because I didn't think there would be any major changes like this.


so my main question is, will there be any sort of swapping of SAs etc allowed (I know when you change a VA you usually give a VA reset etc).

So like would you add an option for defenders that was like "swap current SA with relentless pursuit" or something? That way is wasn't a respec or anything, but allowed for people who are more enticed by it now to actually get it(assuming this does go live)


-------------------------

and ya, SYM looks even worse to go up against now

If we change the SA, that might be possible. I'll ask Bort how he wants to approach it.

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)

Originally posted by Catch22
4% is probably too high. We'll probably reduce it. You do have to remember that +break tackle and +fake AEQ is being changed though, if we swing it too far the other way it'll have too drastic an effect. It'll probably be moved to 3%.

A reduction certainly would be good.
Don't forget, you guys always have the option of tweaking the basic break tackle formula so that attributes help more and +% stuff is not so critical.

Originally posted by Catch22
4% is probably too high. We'll probably reduce it. You do have to remember that +break tackle and +fake AEQ is being changed though, if we swing it too far the other way it'll have too drastic an effect. It'll probably be moved to 3%.

What was the point of adding the outside fake and spin % to Short Yardage Monster? I just don't get it. That change made absolutely zero sense for the VA.

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.

tackling from the front is entirely dependent on your tackle style.

in rugby, we just cared about wrapping up, and I could tackle ANY of the opposing team despite being 5'4" and 130 pounds soaking wet. We used to show that by having me tackle our 280+ pound props in front of the new backs to show them that with the right technique you can tackle anyone.

but if you are trying for a power tackle to stuff the runner etc, you would need more strength to not just be thrown off etc.

So imo, tackling should be weighted heavier in wrap up, and less in power etc

Originally posted by bhall43
What was the point of adding the outside fake and spin % to Short Yardage Monster? I just don't get it. That change made absolutely zero sense for the VA.

i dont know. i'm legitimately wondering what catch/bort think the problem is with the SYM VA. is the problem that the userbase is whining and a change is being made to be made? cause it just seems like we're grasping at straws to make it less effective, when in fact its just going to nerf it to oblivion by not being useful for the people that need it.

Why isn't SYM situational? Why is a VA called Short Yardage Monster usable on First and 10? lol

Originally posted by bhall43
Why isn't SYM situational? Why is a VA called Short Yardage Monster usable on First and 10? lol

because short yard runs happen on 1st and 10?


the VA is all about breaking tackles in the backfield, but I can see how the wordage is a little off.

Originally posted by RMiller517
i dont know. i'm legitimately wondering what catch/bort think the problem is with the SYM VA. is the problem that the userbase is whining and a change is being made to be made? cause it just seems like we're grasping at straws to make it less effective, when in fact its just going to nerf it to oblivion by not being useful for the people that need it.

i guess i thought the change to inside running made sense. Matching up against Gang Tackle, Make Tackle %, D vs. G, among just going against an obliteration of defenders....a VA like that makes a little sense. But now...its like giving Jedi Knight the keys to the castle and telling Garret Dooley and Larry Csonka to go fuck themselves.

Originally posted by Chysil
because short yard runs happen on 1st and 10?


the VA is all about breaking tackles in the backfield, but I can see how the wordage is a little off.

you look for 2 yards on first down?

Originally posted by bhall43
Why isn't SYM situational? Why is a VA called Short Yardage Monster usable on First and 10? lol

true, but if it was meant to be a short yardage first down VA, then wouldn't it be redundant to something like mr first down? why wouldn't have bort put a 2% chance to break a tackle into that VA and not have this one entirely if this one had a purpose?

it seems as if its purpose has been forgotten. imo, its purpose was to allow the RB to break that initial contain and be able to go the distance. but apparently it was too strong at that and now its being changed entirely to a different situation. (hence my question)

Originally posted by bhall43
you look for 2 yards on first down?

just about every team that runs an inside run on 1st and 10 is looking for 3-4 yard. More, great.

short yard run does not mean 2 yards

Originally posted by RMiller517
true, but if it was meant to be a short yardage first down VA, then wouldn't it be redundant to something like mr first down? why wouldn't have bort put a 2% chance to break a tackle into that VA and not have this one entirely if this one had a purpose?

it seems as if its purpose has been forgotten. imo, its purpose was to allow the RB to break that initial contain and be able to go the distance. but apparently it was too strong at that and now its being changed entirely to a different situation. (hence my question)

Ya...but Mr. First Down is possibly gaining 1/2 yard. Combining the idea would make it worth a crap. Imagine Mr. First Down gave you 4% to breaking tackles on third and fourth down. A lot more people would use it.

In football, "short yardage" refers to situations where you only need a few yards to get a first down. That's common knowledge.

Originally posted by Chysil
tackling from the front is entirely dependent on your tackle style.

in rugby, we just cared about wrapping up, and I could tackle ANY of the opposing team despite being 5'4" and 130 pounds soaking wet. We used to show that by having me tackle our 280+ pound props in front of the new backs to show them that with the right technique you can tackle anyone.

but if you are trying for a power tackle to stuff the runner etc, you would need more strength to not just be thrown off etc.

So imo, tackling should be weighted heavier in wrap up, and less in power etc

good poasting