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 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
E Logic
|
posted: 2013-03-26 14:06:41 (ID: 88281) Report Abuse |
|
panoramix wrote:
it was a lot less painful then if they were sacked everytime they tried to pass.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 | |
|
panoramix
|
posted: 2013-03-26 14:08:27 (ID: 88282) Report Abuse |
|
E Logic wrote:it was a lot less painful then if they were sacked everytime they tried to pass.
No, but it was almost realistic! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
holmeboy
|
posted: 2013-03-26 15:31:40 (ID: 88293) Report Abuse |
|
I agree with sacking, I've really struggled picking them up this year (and I think its because more teams are using the SG), and I've played games against bots where I haven't been able to touch the QB which sucks given my DEs skills:
SPD/STR >46, AGIL/POS/FOOT >25, TCK is ~35 now but I've spent the season training that up so say ~30 to give an average. And I've had it explained to me how its harder to sack a QB in the SG lol and how FB blocking isn't the same as OL. But even still how a guy with <10 blocking is able to stop the QB getting sacked is beyond me... edit: Thinking about it, I really think we need to see a 'hurries' stat before deciding if there should be more sacks or not... Last edited on 2013-03-26 15:39:00 by holmeboy |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-03-26 18:08:56 (ID: 88315) Report Abuse |
|
E Logic wrote:
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. Where did you get this 25% from? I completely agree with Johnny here, in the NFL where teams are evenly matched some QBs get sacked on over 8% of plays. A top RZA team facing a Bot or a Noob is the equivalent to an NFL team playing a High School team so I think 25% in this case is way too low. I don't see how HS linemen could block NFL beasts and that's why I wouldn't have an issue with a Bot getting sacked on over 75% of passing plays, after all, against Bot we can score 200pts which is 10 times higher than the NFL average. If points can be multiplied by 10 then everything else should. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
E Logic
|
posted: 2013-03-26 18:54:07 (ID: 88320) Report Abuse |
|
25% was a random number i choose for arguements sake. there is no significants to the number and i did say this in in my post, so there is no need to fixate over the 25%.
Last edited on 2013-03-26 19:03:17 by E Logic |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-03-26 19:14:44 (ID: 88323) Report Abuse |
|
I don't think there should be an artificial limit at all is what I meant, whether 25% or 80% or whatever... In the most extreme cases there's no reason why the DLs couldn't get to the QB nearly every time.
If 4 DL with 45+ Str/Sp 35+ Agi/Tac/Fw/Vis are facing 5 OL with 25 Str 20 Sp 10/12 Agi/Blk/Fw/Vis there's no reason why at least one DL couldn't get to the QB each and every play... Then if the QB has less Sp/Agi than the DL he should get sacked most of the time. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
E Logic
|
posted: 2013-03-26 19:34:50 (ID: 88325) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
I don't think there should be an artificial limit at all is what I meant, whether 25% or 80% or whatever... In the most extreme cases there's no reason why the DLs couldn't get to the QB nearly every time. If 4 DL with 45+ Str/Sp 35+ Agi/Tac/Fw/Vis are facing 5 OL with 25 Str 20 Sp 10/12 Agi/Blk/Fw/Vis there's no reason why at least one DL couldn't get to the QB each and every play... Then if the QB has less Sp/Agi than the DL he should get sacked most of the time. As i said earlier it would cause new managers to give up far quicker than they already do. They get beat bad enough as it is but imagine if every time they try to pass they get sacked. without new managers staying around the game will die. Adding a mechanism like i proposed would add some protection while still allowing some games to have mass sacks. And if it was a purely numbers game then what would the point of any of this be. Even the worse O lines can have a good day just like very good O lines can have a bad day. just because a DL has the proposed stats should it mean no matter what they always get a sack. Anyway i can see this getting off track and i have said all i need to so i will move on. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-03-26 19:44:56 (ID: 88327) Report Abuse |
|
I disagree, I don't think more sacks would mean more newbies leaving... If losing 150-0 but not getting sacked is not making newbies leave I don't think losing 160-0 and getting sacked 20 times would change much, if anything.
Anyway, I finally found the relevant stat I was looking for, the % of sacks per pass play, league wide. 36.5 sacks per team 555.9 pass plays 36.5/555.9 = 6.6% Source: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2012/opp.htm Keep in mind that this is for teams of equivalent levels since there is so much parity in the NFL. A much better OL would obviously allow fewer sacks and a much better DL would create more sacks. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2013-03-27 00:23:49 (ID: 88364) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
I disagree, I don't think more sacks would mean more newbies leaving... If losing 150-0 but not getting sacked is not making newbies leave I don't think losing 160-0 and getting sacked 20 times would change much, if anything. Anyway, I finally found the relevant stat I was looking for, the % of sacks per pass play, league wide. 36.5 sacks per team 555.9 pass plays 36.5/555.9 = 6.6% Source: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2012/opp.htm Keep in mind that this is for teams of equivalent levels since there is so much parity in the NFL. A much better OL would obviously allow fewer sacks and a much better DL would create more sacks. My QB has never been sacked in a competitive game  - and I pass quite a lot - he has attempted 5366 pass plays in 217 games |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
alexshans84
|
posted: 2013-03-27 06:23:49 (ID: 88380) Report Abuse |
|
E Logic wrote:
As i said earlier it would cause new managers to give up far quicker than they already do. They get beat bad enough as it is but imagine if every time they try to pass they get sacked. Maybe there's a reason why high school teams don't play with the NFL teams in the same league?  "Bashing of newbies" is a problem that should be solved by restructurization of leagues' system not by the artificial limits to players' performance imo. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / engine v3 bashing goes here | |
