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 / Flaws in the Game Engine Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2012-05-15 09:03:00 (ID: 40114) Report Abuse |
|
Moved from the new formations suggestions thread. I feel it is wrong to be talking about things such as new formations, 'tinkering', while the game engine has some major flaws, and seems to be based around a few concepts which are unrealistic.
Surely it should be the #1 priority to create a tight, authentic engine, rather than complicate the current situation further and make it more difficult to balance changes later? While FBs/TEs/WRs do not run block... While FBs/RBs do not act as receivers... While RBs never pass block.... While success or otherwise of a run depends on distance of the carrier to the LOS.... (I'm guessing this is why we never get rushes stuffed for anything worse than -1 yards?) While receievers never seem to run routes of even 10 yards unless 'medium' or 'long' pass is specified in the playbook.... While sacks are too difficult to achieve.... While turnovers produce so many defensive TDs.... All of these need to addressed before more is added And what I wrote in direct reference to some of the suggestions in that thread.... I just think that it is a little futile to be suggesting some of these formations, as it makes pure power running formations meaningless, it also makes running to the weak side too effective. 2 WR on one side sets should be an option (the CB would follow the WR across if they are in man coverage, or the whole DB crew would shift a little to the side if it is a zone, or they may audible a switch from zone to man) Is it not more important to focus efforts on improving how the engine deals with the players on the field, rather than create more variables which can potential make the most important improvements more difficult? Don't get me wrong, we have a great game here with a great community, but suggestions threads such as that one seem to be ignoring the basic flaws which need to be corrected to make it even better!!!! 
Last edited on 2012-05-15 09:37:21 by JonnyP |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-05-15 09:46:50 (ID: 40124) Report Abuse | |
|
JonnyP wrote:
.... Don't get me wrong, we have a great game here with a great community, but suggestions threads such as that one seem to be ignoring the basic flaws which need to be corrected to make it even better!!!!
Let me answer as the responsible person, not as an user I agree with your post, and I agree we have to fix things inside the engine (we are in the middle of a part of this task already since weeks), but we have to work on theories how to go further ONCE things are fixed. By saying this, we are listening to suggestions - as always - and check for each single suggestion if it makes sense for now, later or even never. After that we have a Board of Advisers, and these kind people argue about if something is really going wrong or not. These people help me to see things from another perspective. Finally, I judge each suggestion by myself, if it makes sense for me, if it collides with other things I have in mind, if it is possible to do on such a sparetime project (RZA is one, never forget this pls). This means, I have to do some planning, and theory and development are done in a parallel way. So bringing up such a suggestions thread like the formations is not meant to be come true within minutes, it is a thing of preparing such updates. If it makes sense for you to discuss about formations before we introduce the fixes on the engine is completely on you, for me it is a valid strategy. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
TombKing
|
posted: 2012-05-15 16:24:15 (ID: 40184) Report Abuse |
|
JonnyP wrote:
While FBs/TEs/WRs do not run block... Actually, the TEs block on running plays. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2012-05-15 18:53:31 (ID: 40223) Report Abuse |
|
TombKing wrote:
JonnyP wrote:
While FBs/TEs/WRs do not run block... Actually, the TEs block on running plays. Only when you get the message that the DE on that side 'breaks through'. They don't seem to have any influence when that message does not appear, and they have no stats for missed blocks/pancakes as per OL. A TE's primary blocking role is usually to contain the OLB or DE on that side, but it depends on the defensive formation... Last edited on 2012-05-15 18:53:46 by JonnyP |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Flaws in the Game Engine | |
