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 / Shotgun 4 Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 9 10 11 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-19 18:14:02 (ID: 100110028) Report Abuse |
|
Gambler75 wrote:
thomastem wrote:
Part of the problem is that the cookie cutter group think way of building a defense is not ideal for stopping flank passing. If your stars were CBs rather than MLB defenses would be stronger against flank passing. Flanks shouldn't be adjusted because people are too stubborn to defend it as strongly as middle. If i scout a team that goes to S4 pass flanks when losing by X in 3rd and 4th quarter I can easily put in an optimum defense when winning by X in 3rd and 4th quarter and run up the score. I've done it consistently in this situation against comparable to slightly better talent. This is another example of people not understanding or not wanting to employ the best strategies and so ask Pete to eliminate the ability of opponents to attack their weakness. While that sounds good on paper, scout this player, and tell me he should give up a 100% catch rate against? 18/18 targets against him, running the same exact play over and over? If it was a pure garbage CB, then sure ... the MLB isn't THAT far ahead of his stats ...  Right but there are examples of other situations similar to the 18/18 example like running 15 times to the side a talented DL is at gaining 8 plus yards a carry every time. What was the skill level of QB and WR compared to CB? Was DL and LBs putting on pressure? Also there are samples where out of 18 tries in a similar situation where on 4-5 were completed. The reason is that this is a small sample size. If we played a coin flip sim long enough we would get examples where the sim flipped 9-10 heads. Would taking these samples as evidence prove that the coin flip sim is inaccurate? Simply put if the engine never had lopsided stats then it would not be as accurate a sim. It would mean it was taking past results to influence future rolls rather than forgetting past results and rolling individually each instance. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2017-07-19 18:24:13 (ID: 100110029) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
holly did some large sample tracking of it ... it's under the thread here - FB blocking success by formation
And yeah, I also never called for nerfs ... just for the other formations to have a fighting chance by comparison. In my experience, non shotgun formations ARE objectively worse passing ... holly's #'s seem to back that up. So, if you want to say I don't have a big enough sample size, feel free to go compile the proof that *I'm wrong* yourself, rather than just trolling? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof Last edited on 2017-07-19 18:25:07 by Gambler75 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-07-19 18:27:33 (ID: 100110030) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
3 weeks back an opponent targeted my #2 CB - probably 80% of the passes.
Here is what a good solid CB can do. (With some random luck + decent coaching + good solid defenders). And he is a good player too. István Virágh CB 97 Plays 32 Tackles 0 Missed 3 Int's 1 TD 41 str - 48 speed + Track Star - 45.5 skills - 4 experience. Moral of the story is - have some really good CB's and supporting cast..  Last edited on 2017-07-19 18:31:26 by punch drunk |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-19 18:32:45 (ID: 100110031) Report Abuse |
|
Gambler75 wrote:
holly did some large sample tracking of it ... it's under the thread here - FB blocking success by formation And yeah, I also never called for nerfs ... just for the other formations to have a fighting chance by comparison. In my experience, non shotgun formations ARE objectively worse passing ... holly's #'s seem to back that up. So, if you want to say I don't have a big enough sample size, feel free to go compile the proof that *I'm wrong* yourself, rather than just trolling? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof FB blocking % is unrealistic in all formations it occurs but that is a different point than SG4 being OP or people being offended at how others call plays because it doesn't fit their self imposed ethics of fairness. FB blocking in I and Big I is also OP. I agree with the FB blocking % but different issue. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-07-19 18:36:49 (ID: 100110032) Report Abuse |
|
thomastem wrote:
Gambler75 wrote:
holly did some large sample tracking of it ... it's under the thread here - FB blocking success by formation And yeah, I also never called for nerfs ... just for the other formations to have a fighting chance by comparison. In my experience, non shotgun formations ARE objectively worse passing ... holly's #'s seem to back that up. So, if you want to say I don't have a big enough sample size, feel free to go compile the proof that *I'm wrong* yourself, rather than just trolling? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof FB blocking % is unrealistic in all formations it occurs but that is a different point than SG4 being OP or people being offended at how others call plays because it doesn't fit their self imposed ethics of fairness. FB blocking in I and Big I is also OP. I agree with the FB blocking % but different issue. Sounds like you haven't read Holly's post closely enough. His data proves that the FB blocking % is more successful in SG formations than in other formations so it's clearly the same discussion. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2017-07-19 18:40:42 (ID: 100110033) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse |
|
thomastem wrote:
Gambler75 wrote:
holly did some large sample tracking of it ... it's under the thread here - FB blocking success by formation And yeah, I also never called for nerfs ... just for the other formations to have a fighting chance by comparison. In my experience, non shotgun formations ARE objectively worse passing ... holly's #'s seem to back that up. So, if you want to say I don't have a big enough sample size, feel free to go compile the proof that *I'm wrong* yourself, rather than just trolling? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof FB blocking % is unrealistic in all formations it occurs but that is a different point than SG4 being OP or people being offended at how others call plays because it doesn't fit their self imposed ethics of fairness. FB blocking in I and Big I is also OP. I agree with the FB blocking % but different issue. Agreed, but more from people trying to protect vs the run when looking at I and Big I ... but they still gave up roughly 10% sacks, including ones where DEs didn't break through, similar to most other formations. SG4 was 427/427 on blocking blitzes w/o DE breakthroughs. SG4 was 192/193 on blocking DEs w/o blitzes. That seems like a pretty big sample size ... and yeah, sorry if this is hijacking the thread from SG4 is OP! I never agreed to that premise, but that both SG formations seem objectively better than the alternatives. If someone wants to run the same shit over and over, that's their prerogative. Still feels like the other 8 formations could use some looking at balance wise. If Pete's happy with it, then c'est la vie and people will do what's in their best interest. Last edited on 2017-07-19 18:42:50 by Gambler75 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-19 18:48:20 (ID: 100110034) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
thomastem wrote:
Gambler75 wrote:
holly did some large sample tracking of it ... it's under the thread here - FB blocking success by formation And yeah, I also never called for nerfs ... just for the other formations to have a fighting chance by comparison. In my experience, non shotgun formations ARE objectively worse passing ... holly's #'s seem to back that up. So, if you want to say I don't have a big enough sample size, feel free to go compile the proof that *I'm wrong* yourself, rather than just trolling? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof FB blocking % is unrealistic in all formations it occurs but that is a different point than SG4 being OP or people being offended at how others call plays because it doesn't fit their self imposed ethics of fairness. FB blocking in I and Big I is also OP. I agree with the FB blocking % but different issue. Sounds like you haven't read Holly's post closely enough. His data proves that the FB blocking % is more successful in SG formations than in other formations so it's clearly the same discussion. I stand corrected. That doesn't change the fact that not using MOTY when you have it available means that you aren't doing everything that you can to win and are therefor tanking that game!  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2017-07-19 18:50:16 (ID: 100110035) Report Abuse |
|
I already burnt my MotY against Steve ... dammit! I'll change my name to Marauding Tankers immediately!
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-07-19 19:08:32 (ID: 100110038) Report Abuse |
|
Gambler75 wrote:
That seems like a pretty big sample size ... and yeah, sorry if this is hijacking the thread from SG4 is OP! I never agreed to that premise, but that both SG formations seem objectively better than the alternatives. SG formations are in RL as well if you have the right players to run it. Isn't that why NFL teams like to use it in obvious passing situations? I think the question should be if the passing advantage of SG formations is realistic rather than just blindly making all formations equal. My opinion is that I don't know and until that is proven with large sample sizes vs real life not simply vs running formations no change should be made. SG should pass for more yardage against 3-4 than big I vs 3-4. On the other side of the coin Big I should average more rushing yards against 3-4 than SG does. How much more should be taken by NFL and maybe college stats as a ruler to measure. The above paragraph makes for a productive discussion and research while those that just complain that their 30-0 shut out was broken because their opponent passed out of SG4 for a whole quarter is not. Matter of fact it takes away from those like you and Holly that are trying to provide data to fix unrealistic simming from the RZA engine. My suggestion would be to get a comparison of offensive formation effectiveness rushing and passing vs the different defensive formations individually. Once you have the data give it to Pete. Pete has access to the largest sample size and can tinker if he sees something over or under powered. Also call out the cry babies when they post BS because they do nothing but kill the productivity of the discussion and make people want to dismiss it out of hand. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Superpippo
|
posted: 2017-07-19 20:39:18 (ID: 100110047) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
thomastem wrote:
Gambler75 wrote:
That seems like a pretty big sample size ... and yeah, sorry if this is hijacking the thread from SG4 is OP! I never agreed to that premise, but that both SG formations seem objectively better than the alternatives. SG formations are in RL as well if you have the right players to run it. Isn't that why NFL teams like to use it in obvious passing situations? I think the question should be if the passing advantage of SG formations is realistic rather than just blindly making all formations equal. My opinion is that I don't know and until that is proven with large sample sizes vs real life not simply vs running formations no change should be made. SG should pass for more yardage against 3-4 than big I vs 3-4. On the other side of the coin Big I should average more rushing yards against 3-4 than SG does. How much more should be taken by NFL and maybe college stats as a ruler to measure. The above paragraph makes for a productive discussion and research while those that just complain that their 30-0 shut out was broken because their opponent passed out of SG4 for a whole quarter is not. Matter of fact it takes away from those like you and Holly that are trying to provide data to fix unrealistic simming from the RZA engine. My suggestion would be to get a comparison of offensive formation effectiveness rushing and passing vs the different defensive formations individually. Once you have the data give it to Pete. Pete has access to the largest sample size and can tinker if he sees something over or under powered. Also call out the cry babies when they post BS because they do nothing but kill the productivity of the discussion and make people want to dismiss it out of hand. Well, I've done exactly this for around 150000 plays... the plays from games 1-9 this season so far, all elite and division 1 matches not containing bots. Then split up runs/passes against each formation and honestly, SG is not a far superior formation, if anything it's more effective when used as both a passing and running play because of the way people defend against it. 100% passing is actually taking away from it's strength. It's like Thomas says there are many variables that needs to be taken into account, but at the end of the day the average pass from SG4 goes 0,5yd further than the worst passing play. So in 100 passes it might gain you 50yds against someone throwing 100% from a crappy formation. That being said. I do feel that the "encouragement" for those players that put time and effort into a well balanced playbook should be a bit bigger, but more to get a more diverse game, not because s4g is too strong. Last edited on 2017-07-19 20:39:29 by Superpippo |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 9 10 11 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Shotgun 4 | |
