no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Why creating a playboo? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2011-11-08 14:05:22 (ID: 15759) Report Abuse |
|
I spend so much time to create a diversified playbook. I had a hughe loss in the Supercup against a team which only run with I-Formation and Big-I. Our teams are very similar. So it was very surprising for me.
I expected, that my defense react better, when my opponent run always the same 2 plays. I got so many Big-Plays on third down. If the game is really so simple to play, than I need no Playbook. I suggest, that an intelligent MLB could prevent the success of running allways the same play. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
oddball
|
posted: 2011-11-08 14:18:16 (ID: 15760) Report Abuse |
|
i lost to the big I formation, game of the year is a reason but i dont see a point setting a diverse playbook when teams are winning with 1 formation while defence doesnt adapt enough to counter it.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2011-11-08 14:32:28 (ID: 15761) Report Abuse |
|
oddball wrote:
i lost to the big I formation, game of the year is a reason but i dont see a point setting a diverse playbook when teams are winning with 1 formation while defence doesnt adapt enough to counter it. Do you speak about game yesterday of you? Because i dont think Toledo playyed MOTY because the played MOTY already in the wildcard game as i saw and so they could not play again yesterday vs. you. Also they do not have PC drop yesterday which would be signal for MOTY - but sure i can make mistake too! Did you ask him? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-11-08 14:35:53 (ID: 15763) |
|
Buffalo wrote:
I spend so much time to create a diversified playbook. I had a hughe loss in the Supercup against a team which only run with I-Formation and Big-I. Our teams are very similar. So it was very surprising for me. I expected, that my defense react better, when my opponent run always the same 2 plays. I got so many Big-Plays on third down. If the game is really so simple to play, than I need no Playbook. I suggest, that an intelligent MLB could prevent the success of running allways the same play. Try the same in a powercup, and you will see the difference. less skills doesnt mean only "weaker", it means also "worse", "more lucky plays" and so on. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
oddball
|
posted: 2011-11-08 15:53:43 (ID: 15765) Report Abuse |
|
Turtlemania wrote:
oddball wrote:
i lost to the big I formation, game of the year is a reason but i dont see a point setting a diverse playbook when teams are winning with 1 formation while defence doesnt adapt enough to counter it. Do you speak about game yesterday of you? Because i dont think Toledo playyed MOTY because the played MOTY already in the wildcard game as i saw and so they could not play again yesterday vs. you. Also they do not have PC drop yesterday which would be signal for MOTY - but sure i can make mistake too! Did you ask him? no not my game only frustration for my game was big I all game and not containing it. as for lucky plays there are too many for my liking. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2011-11-08 15:57:38 (ID: 15766) Report Abuse |
|
So you mean, I need only a playbook later, when all players are good. and worse players are to stupid to understand a good playbook.
It has nearly nothing to do with good skill, to stop a team, which allways run the same formations. Is there no factor, that the success drop, when a formation is used several times one after another? Maybe there could be a factor depending on the intelligence of your "defense signalcaller" Same Formation on 3 consecutive plays: 0.95-0.99 Same formation on 4 consecutive plays: 0.9-0.94 " " " 5 " " : 0.85-0.89 ..... Samething, if one team use allways one formation for first, second and third down. For example one team use only Big-I on third down. Then the success of the Big I would decrease, after the second time. Last edited on 2011-11-08 16:15:17 by Buffalo |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-11-08 16:26:48 (ID: 15767) |
|
Buffalo wrote:
So you mean, I need only a playbook later, when all players are good. and worse players are to stupid to understand a good playbook. who said this? Me? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2011-11-08 16:35:46 (ID: 15769) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
So you mean, I need only a playbook later, when all players are good. and worse players are to stupid to understand a good playbook. who said this? Me? less skills doesnt mean only "weaker", it means also "worse", "more lucky plays" and so on. A combination of your statement and my experience. I played with my actuall playbook on the teststage and with good players or power mode everything worked fine. With worse players nothing worked. So I reason, that I need no playbook at this stage of game. You all think I'm frustrated about my lost game. No! I expected the loss, but I'm frustrated about the how. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2011-11-08 17:09:03 (ID: 15772) Report Abuse |
|
Thinking about how this would pan out in real life - if an opponent ran every down from the big I in real life with no variation, the defense would not bother with CB/FS, they would stack the line, use extra linebackers - they would never drop into a passing/zone coverage - there would be 11 players hunting the FB/RB every single down. As a defense coach I would arrange it 4-6 with a strong safety set about 8-10 yards back.
That's 11 tacklers vs only 9 potential blockers - with 6 of those being LBs who tend to be very athletic and mobile. Yes, if a run breaks it would break big, but very few would get beyond the line of scrimmage. If the teams are fairly evenly matched, the offense using only rush plays would not get very far at all. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2011-11-08 17:24:12 (ID: 15776) Report Abuse |
|
oddball wrote:
as for lucky plays there are too many for my liking. Hey this is good oddball! Very diplomatic! I must remember this one because when i again write "game is erratic" and i will get punched again for my statement 
To Buffalo: be happy you had the wildcard game for income and must be honest i understand your frustration. I had this weeks ago when i ask for more details and all player on field for each play and so on There happens too much that is just a coin flip and with bad luck you lose - and if you lose lot of coin flips - bad game. But do not make one big mistake! You write your team are equal! I give nothing on the % you have on the team page because if you know how you can manipulate easy to make them look lower. I lost a game by 6 TD and dont know why - we played totally the same playbook my team was stronger at all categorys on paper by at minimum 2% each category but i lost with 6 TD - or maybe only 5 or even 7 - but it was huge - no idea why. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Why creating a playboo? | |
