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 / Playbook viability help Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2024-02-08 13:35:33 (ID: 100181151) Report Abuse | |
|
This has been something bothering me in the back of my brain for a while now. Creating playbooks is a fun part of the game, so I'm glad it's there. However, it seems like unless you have a very well thought-out, complex one, it cannot match the effectiveness of one that is mostly random picks, with only some specific, situational plays being set. I'm drawing this conclusion partly from experience, but also from the way the game is set up. If a playbook is too predictable, the defense adjusts appropriately, which makes sense. Also, if it's too predictable, managers who take the time to scout can prepare a defensive PB to take advantage, which also makes sense.
So here's my complaint. Randomly chosen plays aren't realistic or reasonable. Are there any NFL, NCAA, or even high school teams who use a random number generator to pick which formation and play they're going to use? Of course not, for a simple reason: they'd get killed. In life, a good plan almost always wins over chaos, but not so in RZA. Also, since teams tend to practice the formations and plays which fit their plan, they execute those plays more effectively. No team practices all formations and plays an equal amount of time. This also effectively rewards laziness, or rather, does not reward effort, since putting in a fair amount of time into designing an effective playbook which does defy predictability doesn't give any discernable advantage over random play generation. After much long-winded wordiness, here's my actual either/and/or suggestions: - Penalize extensive use of random play generation in a game, similar to the way using the same play repeatedly is done. (I know the reason for the latter is because they are predictable, whereas the reason for the former is for being unreasonable.) AND/OR - Create an option for teams to practice different formations more than others, which would make them more effective when they use those formations in game. For example, I could use 50% of my practice time on shotgun4, 30% on shotgun2, and 5% each on Iform, Pro, Wish & Flex. It should not be a large, game-changing benefit, just enough to create some perceivable benefit to the use of certain plays and using thought in forming a playbook. (And of course, keeping overuse/predictability penalties in place to prevent abuse) I know figuring out the game balancing of this, especially the 2nd suggestion, might be a nightmare, as I also know this game is not focused on coaching as much as management, but the ability to use mostly random and being as effective as the best thought-out playbooks doesn't seem like good game balance to me. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-08 14:40:21 (ID: 100181156) Report Abuse | |
|
Olband wrote:
This has been something bothering me in the back of my brain for a while now. Creating playbooks is a fun part of the game, so I'm glad it's there. However, it seems like unless you have a very well thought-out, complex one, it cannot match the effectiveness of one that is mostly random picks, with only some specific, situational plays being set. I'm drawing this conclusion partly from experience, but also from the way the game is set up. If a playbook is too predictable, the defense adjusts appropriately, which makes sense. Also, if it's too predictable, managers who take the time to scout can prepare a defensive PB to take advantage, which also makes sense. So here's my complaint. Randomly chosen plays aren't realistic or reasonable. Are there any NFL, NCAA, or even high school teams who use a random number generator to pick which formation and play they're going to use? Of course not, for a simple reason: they'd get killed. In life, a good plan almost always wins over chaos, but not so in RZA. Also, since teams tend to practice the formations and plays which fit their plan, they execute those plays more effectively. No team practices all formations and plays an equal amount of time. This also effectively rewards laziness, or rather, does not reward effort, since putting in a fair amount of time into designing an effective playbook which does defy predictability doesn't give any discernable advantage over random play generation. After much long-winded wordiness, here's my actual either/and/or suggestions: - Penalize extensive use of random play generation in a game, similar to the way using the same play repeatedly is done. (I know the reason for the latter is because they are predictable, whereas the reason for the former is for being unreasonable.) AND/OR - Create an option for teams to practice different formations more than others, which would make them more effective when they use those formations in game. For example, I could use 50% of my practice time on shotgun4, 30% on shotgun2, and 5% each on Iform, Pro, Wish & Flex. It should not be a large, game-changing benefit, just enough to create some perceivable benefit to the use of certain plays and using thought in forming a playbook. (And of course, keeping overuse/predictability penalties in place to prevent abuse) I know figuring out the game balancing of this, especially the 2nd suggestion, might be a nightmare, as I also know this game is not focused on coaching as much as management, but the ability to use mostly random and being as effective as the best thought-out playbooks doesn't seem like good game balance to me. Pffff A penality on a key game feature. The reward on effort is already in place, it calls winning games the lazy managers, like me, do not win. I'm very sure, the only reason not having more trophies in my cupboard is, I'm lazy and by that lose games I could at least try better to win. There is always a % of losing, but being lazy means you lose more often than not being lazy. So, I think putting an EXTRA penalty on top would be just too much. And by the way, with whatever-it-will-be-called, Karma, tactical talent or so, coming to have a penality on one-dimensional playcalling, the space between too one-sided and too random would be too small, I think. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-08 14:48:32 (ID: 100181157) Report Abuse | |
|
To me this idea sounds great. Despite the fact, that I am one of those who regularly "abuse" the random numbers generator. I don't think out of laziness, in my case, as much as not feeling ready to be competitive and out of a fear that by hastily modifying PB I'll plug in some bug which will then take for ever to find.
Nevertheless, for me introducing what Id^2 is writing above would definitely serve as a catalyst to get back to the drawing table rather sooner than later. It would add realism (always nice to hve, imho). And first of all - by adding a new feature, a feature, which would benefit those who wouldn't have to change a lot in their approach to the game, might make the game an even greater experience. One thing I would expect, is that such change wouldn't be with the express speed. It has the potential to affect the game in both positive and negative way, so it would definitely need some testing period. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-08 14:51:41 (ID: 100181158) Report Abuse | |
|
@jack6: what about the experience of using this tactics more often, that one less? It's part of Idlers' combo.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-08 15:14:38 (ID: 100181159) Report Abuse | |
|
jpnwrt wrote:
@jack6: what about the experience of using this tactics more often, that one less? It's part of Idlers' combo. I don't get that question, sorry. Maybe a language thing. But regarding having more real stuff it it ... because of the nature of this game, real stuff is not possible, because real stuff would be to sit on the sideline and make up a play based on the situation at that moment. Here all has to be pre-scripted. The base idea on the game settings having such random play feature is to have LESS complexity for beginners and whoever likes to use it. So adding MORE complexity is the opposite of this. Peter can of course correct me, but I think it was always the goal to have setting with less complexity for easy to set up and playbook for those wanting more, optional. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-08 15:31:40 (ID: 100181160) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
jack6 wrote:
I don't get that question, sorry. Maybe a language thing. Definitely a language thing. Not on your part - on mine  . Bad wording.
I meant this part of the idea: "Create an option for teams to practice different formations more than others, which would make them more effective when they use those formations in game. For example, I could use 50% of my practice time on shotgun4, 30% on shotgun2, and 5% each on Iform, Pro, Wish & Flex." To me that's actually the most interesting part of Idlers' idea. Whats your take on it? Last edited on 2024-02-08 15:32:38 by jpnwrt |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-08 15:45:12 (ID: 100181161) Report Abuse | |
|
jpnwrt wrote:
jack6 wrote:
I don't get that question, sorry. Maybe a language thing. Definitely a language thing. Not on your part - on mine . Bad wording.
I meant this part of the idea: "Create an option for teams to practice different formations more than others, which would make them more effective when they use those formations in game. For example, I could use 50% of my practice time on shotgun4, 30% on shotgun2, and 5% each on Iform, Pro, Wish & Flex." To me that's actually the most interesting part of Idlers' idea. Whats your take on it? That is fine, I think something similar was already suggested in the past, but with 10+ years I can't remember when and if. I did for sure think about such a concept also. Problem here is, should this be open, hence it was scouted by press and league so you SEE this team has a con in I-formation and pro-Set and a pro in SG4 and Big-I, or should it be hidden? Then you have a bonus for what, 1 game and then you shift to something different? I think having a strong concept on that kind of feature needs more than just this short line. Not meant to be con, just meant to be, needs more flesh to have a judgement on it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-08 16:08:35 (ID: 100181163) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse | |
|
For the lazy playbook penalty: it is kind of there already. Lopsided tactics do kind of checks on your playbook, and penalize of you add extensive lines to cheat the karma check.
For this "coach a certain formation/play more, and penalize others": I was thinking about this over and over again in the past. The conclusion was always: dont do that. Basically, it shrinks down the options a manager has, and keeps him/her away from having different tactical sets for different games. This means, you do not need to have several different playbooks and/or match settings. And for me, this was always the part I wanted to have as multidimensional as possible. I found no way do combine these two thoughts. There was a handball game done by the same guys running Grid-Iron. And there they had this choice. You could train "jumping plays" more than others. It took us a few weeks to figure out which type of plays is more effective than others, and all managers started to use "jumping". At that point the fun was over. The problem is, as pointed out above, that you limit the decisions a manager could make, at least of the manager aims for sophisticated decisions. This could work if you aim for game audiences not interested in diving to deep into a certain game. RZA was never made for this type of audience. Last edited on 2024-02-08 16:12:12 by pete |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-08 17:14:26 (ID: 100181169) Report Abuse | |
|
jack6 wrote:
Pffff A penality on a key game feature. The reward on effort is already in place, it calls winning games the lazy managers, like me, do not win. I'm very sure, the only reason not having more trophies in my cupboard is, I'm lazy and by that lose games I could at least try better to win. There is always a % of losing, but being lazy means you lose more often than not being lazy. So, I think putting an EXTRA penalty on top would be just too much. See, we have a difference of opinion here, to which if I'm wise, I'd defer to the one with more experience. I don't feel that a well scripted playbook is any better than a lot of random play selections (except for important situational plays.) Both options prevent prediction well. I'll forego the entire point though based on Pete's desire to not have the game focused on this stuff; as I said before, I understand it's more a management game than a coaching game. It just feels like the extra effort of a good PB should be rewarded more than it seems to be to me, but you think it already is.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2024-02-09 13:35:15 (ID: 100181217) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
jack6 wrote:
jpnwrt wrote:
jack6 wrote:
I don't get that question, sorry. Maybe a language thing. Definitely a language thing. Not on your part - on mine . Bad wording.
I meant this part of the idea: "Create an option for teams to practice different formations more than others, which would make them more effective when they use those formations in game. For example, I could use 50% of my practice time on shotgun4, 30% on shotgun2, and 5% each on Iform, Pro, Wish & Flex." To me that's actually the most interesting part of Idlers' idea. Whats your take on it? That is fine, I think something similar was already suggested in the past, but with 10+ years I can't remember when and if. I did for sure think about such a concept also. This ? Practicing plays Last edited on 2024-02-09 13:36:13 by Drogon |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Playbook viability help | |
