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 / Out of Position Penalty Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 12 13 14 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2013-03-01 08:28:16 (ID: 85081) Report Abuse | |
|
sh8888 wrote:
pete wrote:
...and this would result in completely useless players on some combinations...still ok? remember, a manager should be abl to fill single gaps that way, we are looking for a way to prevent this abuse... So you do see the current situation as undesirable then. Interesting. I am satisfied once all managers are playing their FBs as FBs, and not RBs anymore just so safe a few bucks on the coach. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2013-03-01 08:52:22 (ID: 85084) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
I am satisfied once all managers are playing their FBs as FBs, and not RBs anymore just so safe a few bucks on the coach. I am playing FBs as FBs, but I believe it is not about to save some bucks, it is because simply you cannot have 11 ACs even if you are willing to pay for them ... I was not here when the system of ACs was introduce so I do not know history, but according me it bring more problems then benefits to the game .... I must say this game is great in case of game planning (playbooks, DC and so on) but very weak (sorry Pete  ) in case of financial management. So big incomes is solve by some artificial ways which does not help to this game  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
holmeboy
|
posted: 2013-03-01 09:15:27 (ID: 85086) Report Abuse |
|
IMO the oop penalty is fine at 75%.
Buffalo wrote:
From my experience I can say, that I was not able to win an important title with RBs as FB and CB as SF. And thats the way I think it should be. Enough of a penalty to not screw you over completely but still stop you from winning any titles. The big problem, and the reason why I think this thread was created, is RBs playing as FBs in SG formations. It makes the SG formation too strong, especially 4wr. Because if you line up in dime/335 you get killed on the ground, or if you line up in 4-3/3-4 you get roasted through the air. Solana_Steve touched on it and it would be a step towards 'fixing' this. Make blocking more important for FBs, so if you line up to pass in SG4WR with a RB playing as a FB your QB will get sacked/pressured more. edit: I'm not going to name any names, but I just looked up a random game as an example. The team passed 31 times from the SG4WR and FBs made 18 successful blocks. FB1 has a blocking skill of 11 (12 blocks), and FB2 has a blocking skill of 17 (6 blocks). Considering the DEs/blitzers won't break through everytime as well... Last edited on 2013-03-01 09:24:55 by holmeboy |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-03-01 10:49:42 (ID: 85091) Report Abuse |
|
holmeboy wrote:
The big problem, and the reason why I think this thread was created, is RBs playing as FBs in SG formations. No. That's not the problem ..... that's a symptom of the problem. This thread is in danger of being derailed by zooming in on the Shotgun. It's not about the Shotgun (see the Thread Title) .... it's about the OOP Penalty being insufficient. If .... the OOP penalty was sufficient, Teams wouldn't have even tried to play their CornerBacks as Safeties in order to reap the benefits of the CB coach. If.....the OOP penalty was sufficient, Teams wouldn't be admitting that they play their RB's as FB's in order to reap the benefits of the RB coach. Why ? .... because the penalty(s) would've outweighed the gain(s). But...the fact that both of the above are happening is an indication that the current OOP Penalty isn't enough of a deterrent. The benefits of having a good RB coach and playing an RB as a FB outweigh the OOP penalty .... or teams wouldn't do it. It really is as simple as that. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Ranagol
|
posted: 2013-03-01 11:30:08 (ID: 85094) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
holmeboy wrote:
The big problem, and the reason why I think this thread was created, is RBs playing as FBs in SG formations. No. That's not the problem ..... that's a symptom of the problem. This thread is in danger of being derailed by zooming in on the Shotgun. It's not about the Shotgun (see the Thread Title) .... it's about the OOP Penalty being insufficient. If .... the OOP penalty was sufficient, Teams wouldn't have even tried to play their CornerBacks as Safeties in order to reap the benefits of the CB coach. If.....the OOP penalty was sufficient, Teams wouldn't be admitting that they play their RB's as FB's in order to reap the benefits of the RB coach. Why ? .... because the penalty(s) would've outweighed the gain(s). But...the fact that both of the above are happening is an indication that the current OOP Penalty isn't enough of a deterrent. The benefits of having a good RB coach and playing an RB as a FB outweigh the OOP penalty .... or teams wouldn't do it. It really is as simple as that. Wait a sec. So even if a player originally an RB, now listed as a FB in a play, will get the RB AC bonus? But playing from SG he should be listed as a FB in those plays, so why the hell does he get the RB AC bonus? Because his original position is set to RB? Seems like you've got your solution right there... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-03-01 11:39:24 (ID: 85095) Report Abuse |
|
Ranagol wrote:
Wait a sec. So even if a player originally an RB, now listed as a FB in a play, will get the RB AC bonus? But playing from SG he should be listed as a FB in those plays, so why the hell does he get the RB AC bonus? Because his original position is set to RB? Seems like you've got your solution right there... He doesn't get the in-game coaching bonus. The point is that he gets the benefits of the coach outside the actual match bonus .... faster training improvements /better recovery of physical condition etc |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2013-03-01 11:46:06 (ID: 85096) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
The point is that he gets the benefits of the coach outside the actual match bonus .... faster training improvements /better recovery of physical condition etc Yes and for this he is loosing 25% of skill during match, which is good balance according me ... player with skill 40 get during game skill just 30 ... 80CP coach add 4,8 training points per season, from this point of view OPP seems adequate |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Ranagol
|
posted: 2013-03-01 11:52:58 (ID: 85098) Report Abuse |
|
Right. Was thinking the whole package when reading "reap the benefits of the coach".
In this case I would be down with making the blocking skill matter more in the FB position. A RB with ~10 BLK shouldn't be as effective as a FB with 20+, there should be harder steps in the BLK skill for them. Giving up more sacks should be penalty enough, and RB ACs don't train BLK afaik. But for what it's worth, the whole sack algorithm should be rewritten imo. My best DE has 18 sacks in 184 games. That's way too low, especially with all the bots and new teams in that schedule. It's about 1/3 or 1/4 of what it should be. Leave the OOPP as it is. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-03-01 11:55:52 (ID: 85099) Report Abuse |
|
Viking wrote:
sh8888 wrote:
The point is that he gets the benefits of the coach outside the actual match bonus .... faster training improvements /better recovery of physical condition etc Yes and for this he is loosing 25% of skill during match, which is good balance according me ... player with skill 40 get during game skill just 30 ... 80CP coach add 4,8 training points per season, from this point of view OPP seems adequate I don't agree. (1) If the OOP Penalty worked, why would Teams deliberately take a decision to play Players out-of-position all the time ? Answer : because the benefits outweigh the penalties (2) If you have a v.good RB Assistant Coach and no FB Assistant Coach, and you have two 20 year old players of the same ability (identical twins) .... if you put Player A as a RB, Player B as a FB ..... in 2/3/4/6/8/10 seasons ... the difference between Player A and player B will be substantial. In 5 or more seasons time, will Player A (the RB) be better as a FB than Player B (the FB) ?? .... probably. In 10 years time, almost certainly. Why ? .... because the out-of-game benefits of the better coach will outweigh the in-game disadvantage of the OOP Penalty. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
holmeboy
|
posted: 2013-03-01 11:56:09 (ID: 85100) Report Abuse |
|
Apologies Sh888. In the op the example you mentioned was the RB/FB one, and reading the last few posts guess I just jumped on the bandwagon lol. Didn't mean to derail!
And didn't realise the CB/SF one was a problem too... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 12 13 14 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Out of Position Penalty | |
