Warrior General Games

Just posted in the suggestions forum to have an RB3 slot on the depth chart. If we have a 3 back system, and we have a power back, a scat back, and an elusive back, why don't we have 3 custom slots on the depth chart?

Appreciate the support: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4502513

+1'd it

me too.

yep

same

sorry, I can't see this happenning coz there has been a lot of suggestion threads made up for more custom slots and they have been ignored in the past ...I don't see this being any different and if it does come about, then the other slots that were called for would need to be implemented also ...most DCs will prolly oppose it coz they didn't get their extra LB/DE custom slots that they were screaming out for so they won't be too pleased about being disadvantaged by this without some sort of 'compromise'

Another slot for RB's is not a terrible idea. But it is for the reason you gave......We already have 3 RB slots

Originally posted by Bevo05
Another slot for RB's is not a terrible idea. But it is for the reason you gave......We already have 3 RB slots

Yeah, not sure I understand. You have RB, RB1 and RB2. That's 3.

Originally posted by 89stepside
Yeah, not sure I understand. You have RB, RB1 and RB2. That's 3.

I know you can separate them like that, but if you do, then you lose the option to allow for easy play balance in some games. For example.

RB: Scat back
RB1: Elusive back
RB2: Power back

If I only have 1 dot in each spot, I now have to call out an RB for every single play in every single package. That includes plays where they won't be involved. Now I have to work extra hard to try and balance everything to get plenty of plays for the dots. Let's say that I want to run Z-spot SB. The RB doesn't have an assignment on that play. If I leave it at the default, then the scat back is in. Likewise, if I run FL Hitch from I-form, it's the same.

In those situations now, I just have RB as the back in the play in most cases. I have 2 if not all 3 HB's in the RB slot, and they get rotated in whenever the play comes up. If they're not going to be involved in the play, it doesn't matter who's in unless I'm trying to trick the D (power back and power formation but deep pass for example). I also have blowout packages that have plays in it that are all set as RB. This way they all get touches in blowout games.

The current system isn't friendly to doing either of these things. Splitting the RB's up with 1 per slot solves the problem of getting the back I want in the game on the play I want, but it doesn't help with the other issues. Does that make sense?

+1 to more slots, regardless.

but why not ask for WR custom slots too?

better let DCs tag WRs, though, if they are gonna give us WR custom slots...

hell why not have custom slots for ALL positions? And tagging for ALL positions?

I'd love to sub in a fast blocker at ROT when the line pulls to block for a sweep...

To address JW's second issue...why not a pull-down option for "no preference" when you are selecting which custom slot to call. or you just put the same play in 3 times at equal percentages, with each slot called once? it's a pain, but it'll work. only a little worse than what we had to do to pick the QB before we had custom QB slots...

WR's has already come up in the suggestion thread. I'm with you in that we need custom slots for everything. I'm sure it's a lot of coding, but the skilled positions cost big flex, and they should be the ones with all the custom slots. Maybe we'll get it if everyone posts up.

If they make custom slots for everybody on the O then I am quitting DCing...
Way too much crap to deal with

I'm with zmj. I also think this will fall under the NGTH list, because BORT is all about dumbing the game down. This doesn't fall in line with that. That being said, I see J's point, so I'll +1 anyways

+1

Originally posted by 89stepside
I'm with zmj. I also think this will fall under the NGTH list, because BORT is all about dumbing the game down. This doesn't fall in line with that. That being said, I see J's point, so I'll +1 anyways

+1

Agreed