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 / Lpside tactics Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2019-10-04 09:32:25 (ID: 100143853) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
What I am trying to say is that the offensive play is defined (in the playbook) accordingly the manager order while defense is deployed based on the offense formation as a reaction to it. So if an offensive formation is repeated over and over again it is certainly done on purpose by the manager. But the repetition of the defensive formation not necessarily is. So why am I going to penalize it? How could we identify a "lopsided defensive tactic" in a counter measure?
Last edited on 2019-10-04 11:15:04 by linkleo911 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Ceynwyn
|
posted: 2019-10-04 11:57:50 (ID: 100143857) Report Abuse |
|
Drogon wrote:
Ceynwyn wrote:
In my last supercup game against Misawa I lost and he only played shotgun 4 pass on offense and 5-2 defence. Although playing 100% 5-2 on D, that was an oustanding defense, wasn't it ? Great coaching, right ? It's up to you to choose your defensive formation base on the opponent offence and if you don't, or decide to go all in with only a 5-2 defence, it is ok for what I am concerned. I guess I could have adapted my offence to the 5-2 defence he was always lining up. In the offence scenario instead I couldn't do much else of what I've done. I haven't got an elite group of DB but not bad either, so I firmly confirm my opinion: the penalty for repeated plays is not enough |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2019-10-04 11:58:14 (ID: 100143858) Report Abuse | |
|
linkleo911 wrote:
What I am trying to say is that the offensive play is defined (in the playbook) accordingly the manager order while defense is deployed based on the offense formation as a reaction to it. So if an offensive formation is repeated over and over again it is certainly done on purpose by the manager. But the repetition of the defensive formation not necessarily is. So why am I going to penalize it? How could we identify a "lopsided defensive tactic" in a counter measure? Add new rule to this playbook : quarter : 1st on down : 2nd yards to go : 2-3 Distance Goalline : <5 score : Draw clock : 8:00 on formation : ANY use pass formation : 5-3-3 use rush formation : 3-1-7 prefer : you choose heads or tails This is one line only and it's possible to add many more. You can avoid recurrent D-formation, no matter the O-formation. Add new rule to this playbook : quarter : Any on down : Any yards to go : Any Distance Goalline : Any score : Any clock : Any on formation : Any use pass formation : Goaline D use rush formation : Goaline D prefer : you choose heads or tails Does this one look like "lopsided tactics" ? Penalties could apply to the defense for the same reasons (lopsided tactics, realism) penalties are applied to the offense. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Mücke
|
posted: 2019-10-04 12:00:03 (ID: 100143859) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
@PJ, good analysis as always. Have some questions.
PJRAVENS wrote:
Talking about the werewolves game... The opponent chose always 5-2 defense but werewolves when played rush chose always outside and achieved in 18 rushes 7.6 avg yards. Is it not enough? When played pass avg 7.7 yards. Do we need a penalty on top? Not sure, if the penalty was meant to be work like this: "If Team A offense found guilty for LT, then Team B offense gets a boost." Sounds weird, but who knows 
PJRAVENS wrote:
Because if your defense has a TC of 70% and ... Think i missed it, where can we pick up the TC% on a given game's stat sheet? TC is a factor that surely weighs in, but retrospectively cant be used for analysis since data not retraceable (or i really haven't found that yet). Last edited on 2019-10-04 12:03:52 by Mücke |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2019-10-04 12:57:42 (ID: 100143860) Report Abuse | |
|
Drogon wrote:
Add new rule to this playbook : quarter : Any on down : Any yards to go : Any Distance Goalline : Any score : Any clock : Any on formation : Any use pass formation : Goaline D use rush formation : Goaline D prefer : you choose heads or tails Does this one look like "lopsided tactics" ? Penalties could apply to the defense for the same reasons (lopsided tactics, realism) penalties are applied to the offense. I understand your point Drogon. But now I have a doubt that I would like to ask to all the experienced managers here: the penalty applies to the formation used or to the order on the playbook? Let me explain it better: in the case of the defense I may react to different offensive plays in the same way. For example, if I have an order to use defensive formation A vs offensive formation X and another order to use formation A vs offensive formation Y. If the opponent plays only X and Y formations my team will always defend with A no matter what are my other orders. If the penalty applies on the formation: offense is not lopsided but defense is; if the penalty applies to the order: both teams are not playing lopsided. And I would like to make another question about the lopsided defensive tactic... as the defense reacts to the offensive formation so the same defensive formation will be used against an offensive play repeating over and over again. So both sides are supposed to be penalized, right? Consequently there is no penalty at all if we have defensive lopsided tactics, right?  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2019-10-04 14:23:52 (ID: 100143861) Edits found: 5 Report Abuse |
|
Mücke wrote:
@PJ, good analysis as always. Have some questions. PJRAVENS wrote:
Talking about the werewolves game... The opponent chose always 5-2 defense but werewolves when played rush chose always outside and achieved in 18 rushes 7.6 avg yards. Is it not enough? When played pass avg 7.7 yards. Do we need a penalty on top? Not sure, if the penalty was meant to be work like this: "If Team A offense found guilty for LT, then Team B offense gets a boost." Sounds weird, but who knows
No one know exactly how the LT penalty is applied. To be honest I do not like the word "penalty" I prefer to think like this. Offense choose a formation and if rush or pass. Defense how to react. (defense formation) If the offense plays again and again the same play type (pass or rush) with the same formation the playbook first of all switchs your defensive formation accordigly to counter the pass or rush with the best formation you think should be used. Pay attention that if your order are to blitz this was not changed and so you cannot abuse on blitzs because against the rush are not effective. Now if the LT check reveals you are using a lopside tactic the offense performance are decreased a little simulating the fact that the defense learn much more about what the offense is doing. Of course this is no true if the LT Penalty was applyed in the wierd mode you suggested! Who knows? Pay attention that if the penalty were applied like this and the game ended before I can have an offensive drive I would not benefit of the penalty. I agree with Drogon that in real life this is true also for the offense if the defense use the same formation again and again and there are audibles orders to correct that in RZA are not possibile. The problem on create a LT penalty for defense in RZA is this. If I am on defense and I set to use against offense formation A the defense formation B, I do not know how many times my opponent will call the A formation and so it is not correct I receive a penalty for LT on defense. (This is what linkleo911 pointed out, penalty offeset) In addition you do not have a defense formation suitable for every play direction. If the offensive player had scouted your games and you are guilty of LT on difense he can create a proper playbook to exploit your lazyness. PJRAVENS wrote:
Because if your defense has a TC of 70% and ... Think i missed it, where can we pick up the TC% on a given game's stat sheet? TC is a factor that surely weighs in, but retrospectively cant be used for analysis since data not retraceable (or i really haven't found that yet). You cannot pick the TC % from stat sheet. But you can see from the stat sheet that CBs missed 35% of the tackles, go to the team home page and see his TC 70%. If you do it just after the game….. it works  !!Last edited on 2019-10-04 14:33:41 by PJRAVENS |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
badgers
|
posted: 2019-10-04 14:33:00 (ID: 100143862) Report Abuse |
|
The whole point of this game is to win, am I right? If a manager can find a way to win, good for them. If it is by doing the same thing over and over, that's on the other managers to find a way to counter that. That is the basis of this game; I don't see a reason for that to be changed.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2019-10-04 14:41:57 (ID: 100143863) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
badgers wrote:
The whole point of this game is to win, am I right? If a manager can find a way to win, good for them. If it is by doing the same thing over and over, that's on the other managers to find a way to counter that. That is the basis of this game; I don't see a reason for that to be changed. I agree. This is because if you use always the same play again and again I do not like call the LT penalty "penalty". You can play like you prefer, try to use your offensive players at their best, you do not deserve to be penalised. It is my defense that became a little bit more prepared to couter your play because it learns.... And if my defense sucks you win anyway! Last edited on 2019-10-04 14:42:41 by PJRAVENS |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
noodle
|
posted: 2019-10-04 20:10:53 (ID: 100143865) Report Abuse |
|
linkleo911 wrote:
What I am trying to say is that the offensive play is defined (in the playbook) accordingly the manager order while defense is deployed based on the offense formation as a reaction to it. do we know that this is correct though? if this were correct then i see no need for the "prefer - Rush/ Pass" selection in the defensive playbook. Perhaps the prefer is just how the D sets up and then changes accordingly but if it can automatically change to match what the O is doing then why even have this selection? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Tullo Ostilio
|
posted: 2019-10-04 20:36:32 (ID: 100143866) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
My last friendly.From 3° quarter my opponent did 29 Shotgun 4w,the result is:
11/23 complete for 164yards 1TD,1 turnover on down for 2 possession 6 sacks for 48yards lost Third down conversion 4/7 Fourth down conversion 2/3 4° and 17: 20 yards pass new first down 4° and 1:sacked 7 yards for loss 4° and 2: 8 yards pass for a TD Useless sacks 5/6. The only usefull sack was on 4° and 1,all the other sacks have been turned over in complete for a first down.(This was another bug.After a sacks other than in third down in 95% of cases there was a complete for a new first down). I won,but it was a beautiful match? No absolutely not! Today league match: Fourth quarter 13 consecutive Shotgun 4w 10/13 complete pass for 95 yards and 2TD in two drive(the second after an interception on my second pass drive) Guys against my team don't waist time doing a playbook,just go for a single Shotgun 4w play on entire game,you win easily and you save time for your duty. 
Last edited on 2019-10-05 13:38:30 by Tullo Ostilio |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Lpside tactics | |
