Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dub J
Only way I give this a plus one is if Bort takes the shackles off the DPC.

Catch said they would probably be open to the idea of unshackling the DPC if customizable blocking assignments were added and they worked well.

Originally posted by Gustoon
Something I've wanted for a few seasons now. I also wanted the option of WHEN I wanted to use a particular archetype on which down. Whats the point in building a pass/rush blocker only to find them blocking on plays they are not designed for?

Because there is no strategy to that. Game needs LESS custom slots. Not more.

Originally posted by bhall43
Your perception of defense having the upper hand is a bit naive.

But it has been suggested to Bort to build customized blocking assignments in order to combat the funky blitz's people make up to fool the blocking assignments currently given. However it seems it may be too much of a PITA to code. Not sure. I know Catch liked the idea but there was no official word from Bort on what he thought about it. Maybe something to ask him on the 7th during the QnA.

Interesting. Maybe this is going to be implemented sooner rather than later

Originally posted by Gustoon
Interesting. Maybe this is going to be implemented sooner rather than later

Eh...I wouldn't get my hopes up. But certainly doesn't hurt to give mention of it to Bort during the QnA to see what his thoughts on it are. Maybe he is working on it already for all I know. But I haven't heard anything of it since early last season when it was being talked about as a suggestion.

I will cede this - I am not sure how Confidence plays into avoiding an assignment. Better knowledge of the math for the O-Line would actually help one understand why this happens. It would also improve dot building. All I know is that most every play has a preset blocking assignment, but OL aren't necessarily adhering to those assignments for whatever reason.

The assignment editor would allow OCs to test OL better to find their individual idiosyncrasies. That would give them a better idea how to utilize each OL. It would enhance their understanding of the game and how best to set up their offense. It would also give them flexibility to compensate for those idiosyncrasies. For instance, a C is generally much more limited in blocking assignment than a G. Same for OTs. Any time a double-team is required to compensate for an OL's deficiency, it creates an opportunity elsewhere on the LOS for the defense. DCs will adjust because of that.

I really see the pro-defense argument as much ado about nothing unless it can be shown how allowing customizable blocking assignments would truly limit DCs. I see ways around it from a defensive perspective. I just want the defense to earn their hurries and sacks. I don't care if the defense racks up 200 sacks in a season as long as they are earned rather than handed to them on a silver platter.

Disclaimer: a bunch of responses were posted while typing this, so take into consideration that I hadn't read them yet.

Customized blocking assignments will surely ramp the sacks up. I have no doubts about that. Probably a good reason as to why Bort may not want to go about doing that.

Originally posted by bhall43
Customized blocking assignments will surely ramp the sacks up. I have no doubts about that. Probably a good reason as to why Bort may not want to go about doing that.



That could be.

As a DC I am sure I would find a way to exploit any long-standing assignment. But as an OC, I want my linemen to do what they are supposed to do too. Little is more irksome than knowing that you might blow a chance at a title just because the O-Line doesn't stick to assignments. If the defense just flat out beats you, more power to 'em.

Originally posted by PhillyFossil
I will cede this - I am not sure how Confidence plays into avoiding an assignment. Better knowledge of the math for the O-Line would actually help one understand why this happens. It would also improve dot building. All I know is that most every play has a preset blocking assignment, but OL aren't necessarily adhering to those assignments for whatever reason.

The assignment editor would allow OCs to test OL better to find their individual idiosyncrasies. That would give them a better idea how to utilize each OL. It would enhance their understanding of the game and how best to set up their offense. It would also give them flexibility to compensate for those idiosyncrasies. For instance, a C is generally much more limited in blocking assignment than a G. Same for OTs. Any time a double-team is required to compensate for an OL's deficiency, it creates an opportunity elsewhere on the LOS for the defense. DCs will adjust because of that.

I really see the pro-defense argument as much ado about nothing unless it can be shown how allowing customizable blocking assignments would truly limit DCs. I see ways around it from a defensive perspective. I just want the defense to earn their hurries and sacks. I don't care if the defense racks up 200 sacks in a season as long as they are earned rather than handed to them on a silver platter.

Disclaimer: a bunch of responses were posted while typing this, so take into consideration that I hadn't read them yet.

Originally posted by bhall43
Because there is no strategy to that. Game needs LESS custom slots. Not more.

Unless you're an all out rushing or passing team, what is the point in having archetypes if you can't utilise how they're used?

Originally posted by PhillyFossil
That could be.

As a DC I am sure I would find a way to exploit any long-standing assignment. But as an OC, I want my linemen to do what they are supposed to do too. Little is more irksome than knowing that you might blow a chance at a title just because the O-Line doesn't stick to assignments. If the defense just flat out beats you, more power to 'em.


THIS X loads

Originally posted by fogie55
Originally posted by Dub J

Only way I give this a plus one is if Bort takes the shackles off the DPC.



this

Originally posted by Gustoon
Unless you're an all out rushing or passing team, what is the point in having archetypes if you can't utilise how they're used?



Its strategy. You have positives and negatives to using an arch or build.

while I like the concept, I do have to say one thing.

The defense originally had total control over the placement of players within the box. This led to "exploit blitzes". Eventually the higher ups said that they just couldn't code for every type of new exploit blitz and said screw it we are going to lock down how much you can move the guys in the box and thus have a smaller thing to code for.

If you allowed for this, you open the door for two things:

1) Widening the gap between good OCs and bad OCs. While this sounds like a good thing, here's the reality. Eventually blitzing would need to be improved in ways to allow for them to be effective against good OCs. What may have been a balanced interaction between a mediocre OC and a blitz, now becomes skewed in the defensive favor.

2) This would make it extremely hard to tell real exploit blitzes (where coding cannot pick up a defender), from just bad blocking assignments. We are still having issues with blocking assignments that are leading to near insta sacks being worked out, we don't need to make it more complicated just yet.

You bring in a point of being ineffective against good OC's. At the moment a good OC is trumped by a good DC every single time. There is not enough freedom to the offense to beat a good defense. You can't say we need to ramp up the defense to have effect against good OC's if currently you don't ramp up the offense to be effective against good DC's. Its hypocritical. I agree that exploits would be hard to spot but, it would also allow OC's to have some countermeasure against talented DC's. I like both the archtype and blocking assignments idea.
+1