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 / engine v3 bashing goes here Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2013-03-25 21:07:56 (ID: 88158) Report Abuse | |
|
I get your point, spiff, no worries. The reason I came up with this sarcastic post was, I had no single Guinness since friday....ups...the real reason is, there are so many "rant posts" without containing any helpful hint for the reason...
Again, I read carefully each single suggestion...not only in that board. If you check my ToDo-List, you will see what I am doing with them...I just do all I can to let them come true, if it makes any sense. However, we cannot come up with a new engine every season, this is just a matter of time. And, we cannot change aspects of the game simulation every season, like the suggestion for the coordinators. We have now season 7, and if you check the changelog, you will see and you will have to confirm, that we made a lot of changes for the better, and of course maybe some for making things worse...I stay true to that! So what are you expecting from me? Time is a limiter, and sometimes progress means you have to wait for how changes affect the gameplay. When I came up with 3.0, it was a major change, after having one the season before. Now it is time to relax, and wait 2 or 3 seasons for what will happen. Meanwhile I will do other stuff, like the long expected adding of some formations. Is this wrong? If you think yes, we strongly disagree on this point. Finally: I am a guy always open minded, always good for taking some sarcasm from you, and always ready to put some sarcasm in here as well. This is never meant to be offensive to a single person or post... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
dark_wing
|
posted: 2013-03-25 21:19:01 (ID: 88165) Report Abuse |
|
I just want to say.
Engine 3.0 is the best engine in RZA. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2013-03-25 21:35:43 (ID: 88179) Report Abuse |
|
Engine 3.0 is better then 1.0 and 2.0
but in my eyes, the biggest problem in this engine is that it is (still) to easy in being succesfull with using just 1 formation. But it might be that the opponents DB is behind in skills. I dont think that many teams have weaker front-8 then secondaries.... also, alot of teams is putting up good running yards in 2wr and 4wr shotgun becourse of opponents is using dime defense. Its easy running up good yars with FB (nearly regardless in formation) even tho they are lacking in skills. This im taking from my FB compare to my RB. both is having 7.1(fb), 6.6(rb), 6.3(fb), 6(rb) YPC. And i think that is way to high for a FB. If its only in league games my numbers is 7.6(fb), 6.1(fb), 5.8(rb), 5.4(rb) YPC. so really, why should i run with my runningback with skills at 35+, 40+ and speed, str and agi 40+ when my FB is getting more YPC while having skills around 20+, 25+ and fysicals at 35-40 (exept agi that is around 20). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2013-03-25 21:45:51 (ID: 88182) Report Abuse |
|
KingOfTh3Hil wrote:
Engine 3.0 is better then 1.0 and 2.0 but in my eyes, the biggest problem in this engine is that it is (still) to easy in being succesfull with using just 1 formation. Very good point. Creating a complex playbook might give you a small advantage, but also disadvantages. Sometimes it is really enough to see one flaw of you opponent and play with only one formation against this hole. Another point is, that great players are getting better and better, but their production decline. For sure the opponents are getting better, too. Do good Defender catch less interceptions only because the receivers are better? Are DE getting less sacks, because the QBs are more "mobile"? Does the success of a kicker decrease with better opponents or with his age? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Grzymisław
|
posted: 2013-03-25 23:13:49 (ID: 88204) Report Abuse |
|
I can make all of you very happy and smiling:
Thanks to this thread I read for the first time we have engine version 3.0! Before I thought we use it only in friendlies while in official games it's updated 2nd version we tested in friendlies last season. Agree it's the best engine in RZA history. Surely not perfect(on the other hand, never seen better game engine in online sport manager game), but I'd like we have this one for years. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2013-03-26 11:30:37 (ID: 88262) Report Abuse |
|
I have to admit to be getting a bit frustrated by v3.0, whereas it offered some improvements in terms of reduction in number of big pass plays, it seems to have gone overboard, and introduce several new issues.
It now seems impossible to break a big rush play beyond about 20 yards, and passing if anything took too much of a hit. Offense now seems to be a case of use one formation for sufficient number of plays to lock the defense into one formation, then hit it with the opposite play... usually run-run-run-run-run-pass - if the pass completes you often get a big play, if not you punt - it's how I beat Buffalo in the playoffs last season, and how I've beaten the Piskots twice this season. So instead we have paranoid defensive coaches overusing the dime, and then moaning that it cannot stop the rush play. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
E Logic
|
posted: 2013-03-26 13:36:34 (ID: 88276) Report Abuse |
|
i was finding it near impossible to break any runs for more than 10 yards and being a run first time i was also getting frustrated but ive been plesently surpriced of late that ive been getting quite a few of these runs against pretty good quality teams through a couple of changes I have made.
Yes the engine is not perfect but i find you need a good balence of both pass and rush if you are to beat teams of similar ability and i think that can only be a good thing. And I do not agree with what someone said earlier about you can make little or no strategic impact as i have found i have been able to beat better teams by making the odd gamble hear and there and playing more passivly when others may play extreams like the dime or 5-3-3. my mosted wanted improvements would be 1.make medium and long pass a more viable option although not to over powerd obviously. 2. allow DT to be able to pass rush. And improve pass rush overall as i think sacks are far to hard to come by espeacially when playing offensive formations with FB. As it seems even FB with very poor blocking are to good at slowing down any pass rusher. Although I see a problem where a new team plays an established team and gets sacked on every passing play so there has to be a limit as to how successful a pass rush could be. And i dont mean if you get 10 sacks in the first quarter you cant get anymore for the rest of the game I mean on each play there could be at best a 25% chance of a sack for instance. 3.Allow FB to block on running plays. Last edited on 2013-03-26 13:37:00 by E Logic |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2013-03-26 13:51:21 (ID: 88277) Report Abuse |
|
I disagree with part of what you say on point #2, if the teams are seriously mismatched, why should the DL not totally dominate the play? That's realistic - it would be a sack and fumble fest.
I remember playing for the Uni against Sunderland in the early 90s, they were a new team, we were regular playoff makers - their offense finished up with negative yardage - their QB probably got hit on 75% of his drop backs, and their running backs got murdered. 68-0 with a running clock (only stops for injuries/out of bounds/score/change of possession) and 12 minute quarters from what I remember. If a top 1.1 team with a great DL (Lucea Cardinals) plays newbie and bot teams, I'm sorry if I lack sympathy, but they should utterly terrorise them! Last edited on 2013-03-26 13:51:44 by JonnyP |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
E Logic
|
posted: 2013-03-26 13:55:58 (ID: 88279) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
I disagree with part of what you say on point #2, if the teams are seriously mismatched, why should the DL not totally dominate the play? That's realistic - it would be a sack and fumble fest. I remember playing for the Uni against Sunderland in the early 90s, they were a new team, we were regular playoff makers - their offense finished up with negative yardage - their QB probably got hit on 75% of his drop backs, and their running backs got murdered. 68-0 with a running clock (only stops for injuries/out of bounds/score/change of possession) and 12 minute quarters from what I remember. If a top 1.1 team with a great DL (Lucea Cardinals) plays newbie and bot teams, I'm sorry if I lack sympathy, but they should utterly terrorise them! but then you will have very few managers staying around which in the long run will kill the game. And as i said you would have a maximum of for arguement sake say 25% chance to make a sack each passing play. Although there is at best a 1 in 4 chance to sack on each play, in some freak games you may end up getting a sack 3 in 4 or 9 in 10 you get the point. having a max chance to sack does not limit the sacks per game it just makes it very unlikly that you will get 15+ sacks every time you play a very weak team. Last edited on 2013-03-26 14:05:40 by E Logic |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
panoramix
|
posted: 2013-03-26 14:03:13 (ID: 88280) Report Abuse |
|
E Logic wrote:
JonnyP wrote:If a top 1.1 team with a great DL (Lucea Cardinals) plays newbie and bot teams, I'm sorry if I lack sympathy, but they should utterly terrorise them! but then you will have very few managers staying around which in the long run will kill the game.Look at this match. With only two sacks do you think it was a satisfaction for the Bullets? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / engine v3 bashing goes here | |
