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 / Real formations.... Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2011-10-22 00:01:24 (ID: 14002) Report Abuse |
|
From what I gather reading the various forums a big theme is manager recruitment and retention. Given the fact that in the larger world outside of the US American football is a pretty low level sport.. the majority of managers would I'd wager be coming from the US. That being said if this game is to grow (which I believe it will) its gotta get the particulars exactly right or else is going to risk coming off as being inauthentic and a waste of potential managers time.
I was reading a post in which one of the suggestions was to change the game from being called a "match" to being called a "game" because in the US we never speak of matches. Although that is a minor detail and one I dont think any strong manager would pay too much attention to.. it was in correct the right thing to do. But we must take that and expand it to all levels in so far as terms.. at least for right now. The actual game/engine... web layout/functionality are all things I think most people that come here expecting to play a new game will forgive for the short term. I think when people come here they want to know they are going to be playing a well oiled football manager game first and foremost. One of the first things the developers ask a manager to do is create a playbook. As an avid football fan when I saw the playbook it resembled nothing like an actual playbook. I dont mean the charts and graphs of play design... I'm talking about the formations involved. I'm almost 30 years old and have been watching the game all my life and have never seen a professional offensive take even a single snap with three running backs lined up in the back field. There hasnt been a wishbone offense in Professional football in over 50 yrs if there ever was one. For it to be one of 5 formations to choose from just isnt realistic. I'm not saying it shouldnt be an option.. as this is all made-up.. but it being there in the absence of such much else that is more determining is telling. When anyone opens up a playbook they arent dissected by I-Form/Shotgun/Pro Form etc... they are categorized by how many Skill players (WR/RB/TE) are on the field. If i'm at a football practice and a coach says "OK... I want an I-Form".. the players will look around clueless.. not because they dont know what I-Form is but because that in of itself doesnt tell anything. What needs to be clarified is how many skill players on the field... and THATS IT. The amount skill players on the field tell you the formation.. not the term. For example... if a coach says... 3 TE set... you know thats a big or jumbo set... like wise if a coach says 4 Wide.. thats a spread set. I-form is the most basic set in football but is extremely customizable. The only thing it means is there are two backs on the field in-line vertically with the QB. examples: I-form - 2WR/1TE/2RB - 3WR/2RB - 1WR/2TE/2RB I propose that when managers decide on a formation... they dont do so by terms no longer associated in football but by personnel on the field. Formations should be categorized by the skill players on the field and not generic formations that give little hint to a relatively non-versed football patron as to what they are actually putting on the field. Your thoughts? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2011-10-22 00:23:50 (ID: 14004) Report Abuse |
|
I'm 37 and have watched football longer than you have been alive! lol.
Seriously though, I do not think those terms are outdated. In fact the I formation, shotgun, and 4 wr set is mentioned in broadcasts and discussions frequently. So I would disagree with that. You also must take into account that this is a computer program that has to follow logical rules. You must have some sort of structure to follow. Of all the football sim games I've played online they all use those formations that are listed here except the wishbone. That one is a little dated. That all being said, there are things to add to the playbook that are needed imo. Some of those things are on the to do list and others are being considered. You must realize this whole thing is being run by a single guy that works harder to get this working than another site I've been on run by a company. He is quick to respond and listens to advice. He has made changes along the way and I am fully confident that the playbook will come along in the upcoming seasons. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2011-10-22 02:51:15 (ID: 14012) Report Abuse |
|
lol SFNiner... much respect to your footballing viewership...
Yeah your correct that the terms of formations are still used on a routine basis.. but the terms by themselves mean VERY little in what personal is actually out on the field. I think you and I can agree on that. I have much respect the work the ADMIN is putting in and no doubt will continue to put in.. What I'm trying to do is make it easier for the future because believe me.. If I see these things.. there are MANY others who come here and will see them and not think about bringing it up but just leave. Having the formations be categorized by skill personnel allows for more flexiblity in terms of what type of offense you are and allows the player to know exactly who is out there on the field when i call play. As it stands if I call 2 WR Shotgun... am I to assume the RB is lined up in the back? How many TEs are out there? See where I'm coming from? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-10-22 10:24:11 (ID: 14030) |
|
Maybe a mix solves the situation:
We could add categories to the drop downs... 4WR Shotgun 4WR 2WR 2TE Shotgun 2WR ... The italic one sorts them, but you can s e l e c t from the normal ones only. Keep in mind: the game is intended to be interesting for people from outside US too, maybe with some less football knowledge than you US guys...you get the knowledge by the milk from your mother, we have to learn for it  Last edited on 2011-10-22 10:24:23 by Admin |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2011-10-22 16:00:33 (ID: 14069) Report Abuse |
|
Lol... true indeed. Honestly when I made the suggestion I had in mind people who arent familiar with football. There are plenty of football fans here who if you asked them what a "wishbone" offense looked like.. couldnt tell you. But you ask them what an offense that featured 3 RBs on the field they would know what you are talking about.
The listing of skill players on the field is the easiest clarification method for what the formation looks like and which players out on the field. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2011-10-22 16:08:31 (ID: 14070) Report Abuse |
|
Swordpriest1 wrote:
Lol... true indeed. Honestly when I made the suggestion I had in mind people who arent familiar with football. There are plenty of football fans here who if you asked them what a "wishbone" offense looked like.. couldnt tell you. There are nice pictures in the manual-formations. So everybody could see how a wishbone offense look like. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2011-10-22 21:41:01 (ID: 14084) Report Abuse |
|
Having watched the game since 1987, played 2 seasons of youth football, and 3 seasons of Uni football, I can assure you that terms such as I formation and Pro Set are alive and well.... we used them alongside the Flex and Spread formations.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2011-10-23 01:56:22 (ID: 14092) Report Abuse |
|
Yeah I went over board saying they are dead languages but my point was just saying "I-form" if listening on the radio tells the audience only two running backs on are the field... says nothing about which receiving options are out on the field.
oh and just saw the diagrams for the formations for the first time.. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-10-23 11:56:14 (ID: 14103) |
|
Maybe the time is helping here...
I told somewhere else I am open for new formations. But we have to be careful here. One sided (extreme) formations are not allowed, and we should not put in too many, since some newbees are leaving due the depth, already. So there is nothing wrong with adding more "I-Formations" as example, as long we are sure not to open any chance for exploiting the engine, like Dark Wing in -TOG- |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2011-10-23 18:28:15 (ID: 14116) Report Abuse |
|
Not sure what the dark wing in -TOG-refers to but some normal formations that could be added are...
-Like you were saying more I-forms.. your missing these two - 3WR/0TE/2RB - 0wr/3TE/2RB (what we call goal-line formation) - The single back formation with the QB lined up under center -Same formations as I- form just take out FB and add WR or TE and this is complicated and can definitely be saved for a later date but not having the formations so standard. Example the regular I-form (2WR/1TE/2RB)doesnt always look the same. A lot of times WRs are both lined up on the same side.. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Real formations.... | |
