Community - American Football Management Simulator
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 / The elephants in the room Search Forum
Navigation: |<   <   1  2 3  4  >   >|  
Rating:
Rating
Poster Message
Rufio13
Space Kraken

Usa   Rufio13 owns a supporter account

Joined: 2019-08-14/S35
Posts: 853
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-04-05 18:24:08 (ID: 100173305) Report Abuse
Olband wrote:
I also disagree with limiting the options available to offensive play-callers. It does seem like a very efficient solution, but I personally don't like the cost. I like having more options, not less. The aforementioned point of preferring HBs over FBs is one reason, as well as the more popular avoidance of TEs that are so hard to train. I think it also makes sense to focus the most opportunities your most talented players, whether they are RBs, WRs, or whatever.
I just think the defense needs to be able to match these choices, whether that's a passive in-game adaptation, or allowing play-calling options to open up more of a chess match.


The only option it's limiting is the running choice. Having bad TEs and then having the option to ignore them with no penalty is not a positive. Better players should yield better results, as well as worse players and worse results.

It does make the most sense to focus on your most talented players, it also makes sense for the defense to do that as well. If the offense can make a move and the defense isn't allowed to defend it, that move should not be allowed to begin with.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Rufio13
Space Kraken

Usa   Rufio13 owns a supporter account

Joined: 2019-08-14/S35
Posts: 853
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-04-05 18:26:14 (ID: 100173306)  Edits found: 1 Report Abuse
pete wrote:
Rufio13 wrote:
pete wrote:
Rufio13 wrote:
Pete has mentioned previously that the QB will choose the best option. (which I guess isn't the case since the best option is apparently chucking to the same guy down the sideline all game.)


Could you please create a pointer to where I said that? It seems a bit out of context to me, to be honest.


A quick search via my phone yielded this result. Not quite what I recall seeing, but it can add a little to the discussion I think. I can try to locate more if requested when I'm not working.

From Pete:

"pass" means the QB decides. His priority is "get that first down". So, the pass option in the gamesettings and the playbook is both "get that first down".



For the depth, rufio, not the direction.


Ah, gotcha. Thank you for clarifying. I'll see if I can find the post I was referring to later, it may also have been referring to depth.

Last edited on 2023-04-05 19:44:56 by Rufio13

Quote   Reply   Edit  
pderekdactyl
posted: 2023-04-05 19:09:20 (ID: 100173311) Report Abuse
Rufio13 wrote:
ptdoc2017 wrote:
I mildly disagree.

For one, I like the flank-only running out of wishbone, flexbone and big I so that I know my RBs are handling the ball as opposed to my lesser FB.

Secondly, I'm not terribly impressed with the W/L results of this strategy of passing to flanks only. It's not like the Malones or Elephants (I assume he uses the tactic based on previous comments but have not actually looked to see if he is, so if not, sorry to include you) are having that great of a season. If they were undefeated and beating teams much better, than I'd be concerned, but the W/L results tell a different story.
.


I can understand the first point. The second one I do not. Malones are scoring 25ish points per game throwing to the same player over and over. Obviously, he's proving how broken and ridiculous it is that this tactic is viable. He's quitting the game, partially because of things like this. If he wasn't quitting and actually tried on defense he'd probably be 6-1 with this zero effort abuse of an offensive tactic. And the numbers would be even worse because he'd have the ball more often.


Yeah, my playbook is intentionally obvious. It is also intentionally not situationally good playcalls at all. I took out my thought out end of game/half playbook lines and replaced them with "Pass Left". I also sold like an entire LB/CB core of 50 SPD/50 STR guys last season and replaced them with whoever was on the TM and had a name I liked. I want to get relegated and finally go BOT; I just want Elwood to set unfathomable records on my way down.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
ptdoc2017
Sunrise City Prairie Dogs

Usa   ptdoc2017 owns a supporter account

Joined: 2017-05-16/S25
Posts: 931
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-04-05 21:02:00 (ID: 100173317) Report Abuse
pderekdactyl wrote:
Rufio13 wrote:
I can understand the first point. The second one I do not. Malones are scoring 25ish points per game throwing to the same player over and over. Obviously, he's proving how broken and ridiculous it is that this tactic is viable. He's quitting the game, partially because of things like this. If he wasn't quitting and actually tried on defense he'd probably be 6-1 with this zero effort abuse of an offensive tactic. And the numbers would be even worse because he'd have the ball more often.


Yeah, my playbook is intentionally obvious. It is also intentionally not situationally good playcalls at all. I took out my thought out end of game/half playbook lines and replaced them with "Pass Left". I also sold like an entire LB/CB core of 50 SPD/50 STR guys last season and replaced them with whoever was on the TM and had a name I liked. I want to get relegated and finally go BOT; I just want Elwood to set unfathomable records on my way down.


Team ratings aren't everything, but still, this is a team sporting an 85% overall rating. And the Malones have lost to the Oilers (84.4%), HighTowers (80.7%), Elephants (79.9%), and Comanches (74.9%). And there were close wins against Raspberry (85.9%), Wild Thangs (82.7%), Guardians (72.9%) and Steelers (75.1%). Hard to say these tactics are producing an unstoppable offense when there are several losses and close calls to teams 5-10%+ lower rated.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
pderekdactyl
posted: 2023-04-05 22:26:24 (ID: 100173318) Report Abuse
ptdoc2017 wrote:
Team ratings aren't everything, but still, this is a team sporting an 85% overall rating. And the Malones have lost to the Oilers (84.4%), HighTowers (80.7%), Elephants (79.9%), and Comanches (74.9%). And there were close wins against Raspberry (85.9%), Wild Thangs (82.7%), Guardians (72.9%) and Steelers (75.1%). Hard to say these tactics are producing an unstoppable offense when there are several losses and close calls to teams 5-10%+ lower rated.


My lbs and CBS had skills around 30.0 in these. My second highest rated cb has tac of 36 an vis and pos are worse. Olb2 and olb3 have skills around 31. And these trash trained youngsters play 50% more than the old olb1 because of the new fatigue rules but I still don't change my depth chart to help this. The team rating is high but the rating on the defense edges (where it matters for most plays) is not elite quality at all. My LBs and CBs are truly only half a roster right now.

That's also a super bloated team rating thanks to 89.3 special teams and 90.6 rushing rating. I try to rush just enough to avoid lopsided tactics and have kicked 1 fg and 8 punts in those 7 league games. And WR2 has 48.5 vis/cat/pos to help him achieve 0 catches.

My QB, OTs, and WR1 are legit trained and used, the rest of my team offense and special teams rating is pretty much window dressing... and my defense is half trained where it matters while my SF and DT are all star caliber.

My entire team is set up to be annoyingly dum, and I'm 3-3 against humans.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
wsfjlt
Blue Devils

Usa   wsfjlt owns a supporter account

Joined: 2023-01-24/S50
Posts: 87
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-04-06 09:24:55 (ID: 100173323) Report Abuse
My suggestion would be to put it to a vote on taking the option out of the game.

I would vote on taking it out of the game so you could only pass short, medium or deep, like the original post stated.

saw an argument that they liked the option so that they could ensure the RB carried the ball vs fullback, I would say you are running the same patterns repeatedly and the defense should key in on that, they would also key in on knowing who the ball carrier is going to be as you don't mix it up with your fullback. What you are doing with the run situation is the same thing as passing to the same person on the flank each time, just on a lower scale.

I again would vote it out of the game. Just my opinion and suggestion.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Captain Jack
posted: 2023-04-06 11:53:31 (ID: 100173324) Report Abuse
pete wrote:
For the topic itself:

1st.) I couldnt care less if a manager finds fun in such boring gameplay.

2nd.) I feel with those managers who are disappointed such tactics works at all

3rd.) If I take measures, I would have two ways:

a.) Do it midseason. The danger is that managers might be upset who lost because of the strange gameplay, while other win after the engine behaves different

b.) do it at next rollover. We will have to deal with during this season



Although I would like to see it gone quickly it is probably more reasonable to do it at the season rollover. As you say it is then more fair to those who have suffered because of it. I think the two options are either to limit the choice of options as mentioned to something like Pass - Short, Medium, Long and maybe Run Middle (OC), Inside (OT) or Outside (OG). Another option would be to severely increase the fatigue on a player who receives the ball multiple times whether running and/or passing. Or perhaps a combination of these two points.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Olband
Missouri Misery

Usa

Joined: 2020-05-11/S38
Posts: 497
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-04-06 12:59:55 (ID: 100173325) Report Abuse
Captain Jack wrote:
Although I would like to see it gone quickly it is probably more reasonable to do it at the season rollover. As you say it is then more fair to those who have suffered because of it. I think the two options are either to limit the choice of options as mentioned to something like Pass - Short, Medium, Long and maybe Run Middle (OC), Inside (OT) or Outside (OG). Another option would be to severely increase the fatigue on a player who receives the ball multiple times whether running and/or passing. Or perhaps a combination of these two points.


I really like your idea of increasing fatigue when a player gets used that much. Totally makes sense.
On a similar note, I think OLs should get increased fatigue when pass blocking a lot, just like actually happens IRL. DLs should have increased fatigue when defending against the rush a lot.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
wsfjlt
Blue Devils

Usa   wsfjlt owns a supporter account

Joined: 2023-01-24/S50
Posts: 87
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-04-06 13:45:17 (ID: 100173326) Report Abuse
I would also carry forward lopsided play to the following games and get worse from week to week. If you are using lopsided plays, there should not be a benefit at the beginning of the match. Good coaches, even poor ones can see, every time they get into the flexbone the HB gets the ball and runs this pattern, so why would any defense be surprised by the play, wouldn't they be prepared for it. A team to heavy on run, or pass, should have a lopsided penalty, that is forwarded game to game, like physical condition and team chemistry, call it predictability factor.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
pete
H2TAGIT4Q

Europe   pete owns a supporter account   pete is a Knight of RedZoneAction.org

Joined: 2011-09-01/S00
Posts: 20521
Top Manager



 
posted: 2023-04-06 13:58:44 (ID: 100173327) Report Abuse
Be careful with the idea of more exhausted players. It would result in the need of broader rosters, which would result in less average player quality.

Quote   Reply   Edit  
reply   Mark this thread unread
Navigation: |<   <   1  2 3  4  >   >|  
Main / Suggestions / The elephants in the room