Superpippo wrote:


Now before I go a bit deeper into this I would like the clarify that I'm actually part of the side that is asking for some changes for what seem to be the 3 major questions:

1) Should the out of position penalty be harsher?

2) Should the Shotgun Formation be tweaked down?

3) Should the lopsided tactics penalty be harsher?

My Personal opinion is 1) Yes 2) Only slightly 3) Maybe a little.

.

Superpippo wrote:
At the end of every season there seems to be an explosion of rageposts on the forums about the engine, the formations and everything else. I don't feel the Supercup/COC/League threads are a place to have this discussion and I would like to ask everyone to refrain from starting discussions there and if you feel the need to vent, to post it in a seperate discussion.

When you do, it would be nice if you take a step back and actually consider what you're complaining about. Is it a few plays that didn't go the way you hoped? A game you lost you feel you should have won? What strikes me as odd is that a lot of people that blame losses on the engine, feel that their victories have little to do with that same engine.

Now before I go a bit deeper into this I would like the clarify that I'm actually part of the side that is asking for some changes for what seem to be the 3 major questions:

1) Should the out of position penalty be harsher?

2) Should the Shotgun Formation be tweaked down?

3) Should the lopsided tactics penalty be harsher?

My Personal opinion is 1) Yes 2) Only slightly 3) Maybe a little.

The first one I can't support with numbers because we really have no idea how strong this penalty is and what the exact influence is. I just have that gut feeling that if you have a trainer training your player specifically for one position all the time, which makes him evolve toward being a better player on that position, he should do considerably worse if he's played somewhere else.

The other two is because firstly I know that the shotgun formations have a slight advantage, which I personally would change by slightly increasing the interception rate. And secondly understand the feeling of some managers that put a lot of time into this game and can't make a difference against teams that take an easy approach. I feel it should be a little harsher, but we also need to understand that this game needs players and not everyone can or wants to commit the same amount of time, they should be able to enjoy the game as well.

Now as for my claims I actually can support with numbers, and I know several other managers that know these numbers too and somehow seem to forget them when it suits them. Yesterday a certain team was called out as the new "Poster Boy" for lopsided tactics. So I thought let's take a look at his last 10 matches and compare them to what the averages are spread over all 1.1 and Elite teams.

His average pass length in these games was 5,75yds, the overall average is 5,77yds. His overal rush length was 6,22yds, the overall average is... 4,09yds. So basically, he made the difference on the run.

You know why he made a difference on the run? Because no-one defends the run and he took advantage of it. Of the 900 plays I included in my research he ran the ball 368 times. Of those 368 only 56 were defended with Goalline D/5-3-3/4-3-3. If you want an easy number crunch for defending run plays it goes like this: 5-3-3 gives up 2 yards, 4-3-3 2,5yds, 3-4-4 4yds, 3-3-5 5 yds. FYI: those differences are way smaller for the pass.

What I'm trying to say is: If you feel the only reason you should win is because of you have a strong offensive playbook that took a lot of time and effort to make, but you don't feel the need to scout your opponents' "lopsided" playbook, and then put up a crappy generic defense using all 3-4-4 or 4-4-3 or like I've read in the past on the forums "Don't defend the run at all" maybe you shouldn't be so surprised that you can lose a game.

When you look at what Pete created here and dive into the numbers, it's a thing of beauty. All formations put on different yardages/completion percentages/sack percentages/interception percentages against different defenses, all of those changing depending on yards to go and left right middle split, the strength of each individual player and probably a lot of variables I'm not even aware of. That get's put through the RNG to get a semi-realistic game result. If you take the time to actually gather all these numbers, you'll find that they all make sense in a way. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be? No. But it's extremely good and we have a creator that is listening to us and prepared to discuss the problems. Who has already said that there will be changes in the new engine and who has been working on this game for probably more than 8 years, and I'm pretty certain this project cost him money. Give him the credit and respect he deserves for that and try to contribute to further developing this game instead of criticising the flaws that are still there.

punch drunk wrote:
81 total plays. 3 formations.

69 plays out of just 1 of the formations.

Only flank.

Yet another thumbs down.

Yet another strong win.

punch drunk wrote:
81 total plays. 3 formations.

69 plays out of just 1 of the formations.

Only flank.

Yet another thumbs down.

Yet another strong win.

marinarul10 wrote:


This does not say anything .... if the defense of the losing side chose wrong the playtype(run, pass) in most of those 81 plays, it will always be a loss for them and it should be like that no matter how many formations will use the winner....