Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I get the idea but wouldn't 3 different SA trees solve the same problem? Also, how would 2 different LB positions work with those that run the 3-4 defense a lot? Or some of the other D-formations like Dime and Nickle and such? I would suspect this might cause needing extra LB's in both positions... one against the run teams and one against the pass... which leaves us back where the trouble lies. Cover LB's don't get built because the SA trees both suck for a cover LB. IMHO.

Sadly, I doubt either of our ideas would happen. Adding a 3rd SA tree would require redesigning the player page to accommodate the third tree, while splitting LB into two positions would require some OOP adjustments and force some major changes to roster philosophy.

I suppose for 3-4 defenses the cleanest solution would be to change LILB and RILB to LMLB and RMLB for OOP purposes, but that would make LB blitzes by the ILBs a lot more difficult than they already are. Or maybe just make one of the ILB slots into MLB instead of both, but then which one do you do? R or L? The more I think about my idea, the less good it sounds.

I saw someone suggest just giving LBs the same SA trees as Safeties. Not ideal, but it's gotta be better than the current setup, right?

The programming is already in place to build the Coverage LB using the additional SAs and or equipment SAs.
What's the problem doing it that way?
The high cost in BT of the 2nd 3rd 4th SAs.
Simple fix, reduce the cost for the 2nd and 3rd SA spots. (i don't think I've ever used 4 SAs)
A user made cheaper mini tree limited to 3.
That is an easy tweek that could be done for all players.

Originally posted by BigRatUno
The programming is already in place to build the Coverage LB using the additional SAs and or equipment SAs.
What's the problem doing it that way?
The high cost in BT of the 2nd 3rd 4th SAs.
Simple fix, reduce the cost for the 2nd and 3rd SA spots. (i don't think I've ever used 4 SAs)
A user made cheaper mini tree limited to 3.
That is an easy tweek that could be done for all players.

one other fix could be removing any oop and let SS play in an LB slot for coverage ..

although i still prefer ...

Originally posted by reddogrw
coverage

FS, SB, SH, SV, SDC

HH

WUT, DT, BH, JH, MH

Blitz

FS, TV, SB, DB, BS

Originally posted by Novus
Sadly, I doubt either of our ideas would happen. Adding a 3rd SA tree would require redesigning the player page to accommodate the third tree, while splitting LB into two positions would require some OOP adjustments and force some major changes to roster philosophy.

I suppose for 3-4 defenses the cleanest solution would be to change LILB and RILB to LMLB and RMLB for OOP purposes, but that would make LB blitzes by the ILBs a lot more difficult than they already are. Or maybe just make one of the ILB slots into MLB instead of both, but then which one do you do? R or L? The more I think about my idea, the less good it sounds.

I saw someone suggest just giving LBs the same SA trees as Safeties. Not ideal, but it's gotta be better than the current setup, right?

Wouldn't have to redesign the player page... just have the SA tree for Cover LB's replace one of the others when that particular archetype is selected.

Originally posted by GroupOh


one other fix could be removing any oop and let SS play in an LB slot for coverage ...


I would do that a lot if it's not fixed. SS or FS in place of LB just to make it work. OOP would be pretty low. I don't think I'd use a CB though. I mean, there are defensive formations that use 3 safeties instead of 2. Usually with one LB (MLB)... sometimes with 2 LB's.

Not a bad idea, on creation select from a variety of SA trees

Originally posted by pittball1
Not a bad idea, on creation select from a variety of SA trees

And likely not just for LB's. I mean most positions have more than one archetype... especially STOP positions. I wouldn't make one specific for Combo builds as they could choose from whatever there is. But you have Blitz archetypes, STOP archetypes, man cover, zone, HH... trying to shoehorn 2 trees into all of that is bound to have holes in the SA trees. Just have a tree for each archetype, selectable when you 1st build the dot... right on the 'select archetype" page. Especially STOPs need their own SA trees and not get stuck with poor choices.