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 / Suggestions / Additional Playbook Settings Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
BlindLark
|
posted: 2022-01-14 20:52:47 (ID: 100164211) Report Abuse |
|
I realize there are prospective playbook changes on the master "To Do" list... but as I don't know specifically what the dev has in mind, I thought I'd offer my own suggestion.
As of now, there is no way to create a varied but unique playbook. For instance, on offense, on first down in the first half, I want to run 60%, pass 40%, and do so from only 3 specific formations where I know I'll have my best personnel on the field. Currently, I can only choose to either run or pass, not both, and can only choose a single formation to do so. Otherwise, I just have to leave it to the match settings, which are extremely broad. A very easy fix would be to add a "Weight" setting for each rule you implement. The weights would be 1-10. In game, the engine would then check your playbook for any situational rules that apply, add their cumulative weights, and s e l e c t one based off a random roll. In my example above, I would put in 6 rules in my playbook. Each would say first down, first half. Three would be runs, three would be passes, one each for the three formations I want to use in that situation. I would then set the weight for each run at 6, and the pass for 4. Thus, when the engine checks my playbook, if the criteria match (1st down, first half), since none of my rules say "Always" it would add all the applicable weights together (30 total) and roll a random number between 1-30. If it is 1-6, it will run rule 1, if it is 7-12 rule 2, etc. The results would then be exactly a 60% chance to run, 40% to pass, with equal chances that it will be from any of the three formations. If I wanted to favor one formation over another, I could simply bump up the weight for that formation, or reduce the weights for the others. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2022-01-17 17:54:02 (ID: 100164339) Report Abuse |
|
If it is posible to do this then it would IMO be very useful and make it easier to vary the playbook without having to wade through pages and pages.
However, the fact that it is so helpful means it will probably be opposed by experienced mangers. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-01-18 17:23:42 (ID: 100164398) Report Abuse | |
|
Yep, and this is not the first time I am reading suggestions about it.
What kept me away from doing it until today, beside not having time? I found no way yet to keep formats of the existing playbooks and the new structure somehow compatible. This is important for me to allow migration, and it is important not to render old playbook exports useless. The engine would have to support both formats as well. Not saying I do not like the suggestion. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
pderekdactyl
|
posted: 2022-01-18 18:09:30 (ID: 100164406) Report Abuse |
|
I actually don't like percentage run/pass in the playbook. When I first started I thought those percentages would be helpful too, but after playing longer and doing more with playbooks I don't like the idea at all anymore.
1) Essentially defenses are helpless in a percentage world. It turns every play into a run pass option and defenses don't have that. My first down defense would be the same in, probably, >90% of the plays against percentage based offense. 2) game strategy is neutered pretty hard. Sure, they'll be some variation here and there, but a meta will develop for run vs pass percentages that the vast majority will just use. This shifts RZA more heavily into a roster and RNG set up with a little bit of scenario playbooking scattered in occasionally. Post: "hey I'm new what's a good pass % to use?" Answer: "just use x% and you'll be fine". Then nothing changes pretty often. Is that easier? Absolutely. But it is also a lot less fun. I was just burned as hard as one can in the biggest game one can get burned by messing up in the current set up and punting on second down multiple times in the bowl, and I still would rather have that happen than percentage based playbook. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
BlindLark
|
posted: 2022-01-18 19:39:33 (ID: 100164417) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
I found no way yet to keep formats of the existing playbooks and the new structure somehow compatible. I see two solutions to this. First, would be to have both systems, with managers being able to choose to migrate to the new system or stay on the old one. Second, you could implement it so that it automatically migrates old rules into the new playbook manager. This would be done through the addition of an "Always" setting to the 1-10 weighting. If any rule has the "always" setting the game will choose the first instance of this and override any other rules matching the situational criteria. This would make the transition easy as all the old rules would get translated over set by default to "always", and thus would act the exact same as they currently do. It would also mean that managers who prefer this system would be able to continue to use it exactly as they do now. pderekdactyl wrote:
1) Essentially defenses are helpless in a percentage world. It turns every play into a run pass option and defenses don't have that. My first down defense would be the same in, probably, >90% of the plays against percentage based offense. No, they aren't, and frankly I'm a bit baffled at the suggestion they would be. I have played several football management games with this setting, and I have found absolutely no loss in defensive control. You still have to look for patterns in how opponents run their offense, and what they are most effective at in those formations. Not all managers will prefer the same formations with the same run/pass percentages in every single situation. As a defensive DC, it's your job to look through the game logs to suss out their proclivities and adjust accordingly. If your first down defense is the same 90% time on first down... your opponents are being extremely predictable. Also... how truly different is that from right now? In your match versus Yorkshire, you ran 3-4-4 24 times in the first half, 3-3-5 7 times, and 4-4-3 6 times... no other defenses. Maybe you're speaking about only adjusting whether you play run/pass... but that wouldn't change in a % based system... the only thing that would change is that the results of your "guess" wouldn't be totally binary in their result. Under the current system, it's exactly binary, and I would argue has more of the very problem you're delineating. An offense will 100% do X or Y, forcing you to guess one way or the other (unless your opponent NEVER adjusts their offensive settings). If you're wrong, you're 100% wrong. If you're right, you're 100% right. BUT... the AI will adjust as your opponent continues to do X or Y. So even if you guess wrong initially, you will eventually be overridden as the AI learns what they are doing in X situation. In a percentage based system, your decision thus has more of an impact (if they are not as predictable, it will take longer to hit the AI adjustment, so your initial choice carries more weight). pderekdactyl wrote:
2) game strategy is neutered pretty hard. Sure, they'll be some variation here and there, but a meta will develop for run vs pass percentages that the vast majority will just use. This shifts RZA more heavily into a roster and RNG set up with a little bit of scenario playbooking scattered in occasionally. Post: "hey I'm new what's a good pass % to use?" Answer: "just use x% and you'll be fine". Then nothing changes pretty often. I can't see how this would be true. Right now, offensive gameplanning is extremely neutered and exhaustingly tedious. Allowing percentages for formation and run/pass opens it up considerably. And if there is an optimal run/pass percentages for every down and distance that every player uses... that is an engine problem, not a playbook problem. Every team has the exact same personnel that would benefit the exact same from the exact same gameplan? What a terrible game... who would want to play that? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
pderekdactyl
|
posted: 2022-01-18 20:36:04 (ID: 100164423) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
After all audibles and adjusting, when the ball is snapped in real life a team is 100% pass or run too, except for RPO and maybe I should include qb scrambles and roll out passes.
And, it was really hard for the best coaches on the planet getting paid millions a year to come up with a plan vs RPO. Defenses were baffled, some even would say helpless. I'm not as good at math as Rufio, but in the example you chose 24/37 is still less than 90%. Also, let's use all 38 first down plays Yorkies ran that game. 19 vs 344 6 vs 335 5 vs 443 8 vs 533 19/38=50% were 344 In the regular season I was 3-4-4 in 286 of 526 plays, 54.4% of the time. So.... Quite a bit different than 90%. (edited counts because I missed a filter first time, nothing materially different ) I'll also note that not all plays even in the same formations are created equally. There's possibly more variation in those than just formation with blitz % and run/pass. But, just going face value (because nobody besides me and Pete can see what's different within a formation) then I still varied way more than 10%. And, that's against the best managers in RZA with offensive playbooks where I'll be less good at guessing proclivities, predispositions, inclinations, and stuff. Last edited on 2022-01-18 21:28:51 by pderekdactyl |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Additional Playbook Settings | |
