Warrior General Games

+1 Fumbles should be able to be returned as well..

How about players run at half speed for 5-10 ticks (randomized) after recovering a fumble, if not tackled immediately.

And players run at half speed for 3-8 ticks (randomized) after intercepting a ball, if not tackled immediately.

They've already got a half speed function in there after a fall down INT. On the off-chance a dot actually has time to get back on his feet, he basically stumbles forward for a few yards just to make sure any offensive players who weren't close enough to make the initial tackle can still catch up.
Dots getting up and running should be at the same speed as a dot starting from a standstill.

+1

Originally posted by Pwned
+1 Fumbles should be able to be returned as well..

How about players run at half speed for 5-10 ticks (randomized) after recovering a fumble, if not tackled immediately.

And players run at half speed for 3-8 ticks (randomized) after intercepting a ball, if not tackled immediately.

+0.5 to this post.

Some interceptions and at least half of fumbles should result in the fall-down/dive on the ball dynamic that exists now, as sometimes real football players fall down making interceptions, and the majority of the time real fumbles result in piles of players trying to get possession and no return.

BUT...when that doesn't happen, and sometimes it shouldn't, there should be about 2 ticks to secure the ball and then the above idea should kick in, still resulting in the occasional long return as can occur in real life.

Originally posted by Ken1

Some interceptions and at least half of fumbles should result in the fall-down/dive on the ball dynamic that exists now, as sometimes real football players fall down making interceptions, and the majority of the time real fumbles result in piles of players trying to get possession and no return.

BUT...when that doesn't happen, and sometimes it shouldn't, there should be about 2 ticks to secure the ball and then the above idea should kick in, still resulting in the occasional long return as can occur in real life.

As long as this doesn't turn into a fix solely about how the dot starts moving again that makes sense. But the main issue remains that the defender falling down after an INT (as currently tweaked) is NOT at all the solution we need.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
I'm not against players falling down. Realistically, players do fall down in the NFL when making plays. However when they fall down it's usually a combination of factors, and when players fall down in GLB certain times their are just no factors going into it at all. Like sure, a player getting pushed over, that's great. But a player catching a ball in the open and falling over because it's hard-coded into the game isn't good.

I've been saying the same thing over and over again. Players falling down when making an INT should have nothing to do with how many offenders are nearby, that doesn't make any sense.
It'd be much better if a simple roll was made to check if the defender falls down.

It should be based on the balance of a few factors.
-How far away the ball is from the defenders numbers at time of catch.
-Players Balance at time of making catch
-Players Catching and Agility Skill

There should be a point where a player is too off balance to land on their feet. Their should be a point where a defender has to reach too far for them to land on their feet.
A players Agility and Catching should allow them to possibly pass a roll within the accepted range. Higher Catching and Agility and Jumping should allow a player to be able to be farther off balance while still having a chance to land on their feet, or to be able to reach farther for an interception while still having the chance to land on their feet.

This way performance could actually be based on builds allowing the game and outcomes to be better based on builds. This way dots who've invested in the ability to intercept passes should be more likely to be able to return them successfully, while dots who are not built for it will be more likely to fall down when they manage to snag an interception or two.

This game should always reward players for building towards performing in a certain way. If you build for interceptions, you should be better than normal dots. If you build for fumbles, you should be better at it than normal dots, and the same for every other roll a player can enact in game.

This +100

Catching IMO should not be a big factor as to the actual INT roll (as it never has been) but it would make sense to be a deciding factor in if the CB falls down after the INT. So higher catching smooth catch and more likely a pick 6.

Also IMO high catching for a CB should be about 48-50. There is no reason to try and force CBs to have 80 catching because all good agents will just ignore it and you will still have all good CBs with 20 catching as they currently do. they are just not going to ruin a cover CB to try and get a few pick 6s.

Catching absolutely should matter for a DB making an INT. It determines the catch radius, the ability to make it a clean pick, etc. But Catching itself should really have no bearing on if a dot suddenly falls down as if shot once he catches a ball.

Originally posted by bedgood42
This +100

Catching IMO should not be a big factor as to the actual INT roll (as it never has been) but it would make sense to be a deciding factor in if the CB falls down after the INT. So higher catching smooth catch and more likely a pick 6.

Also IMO high catching for a CB should be about 48-50. There is no reason to try and force CBs to have 80 catching because all good agents will just ignore it and you will still have all good CBs with 20 catching as they currently do. they are just not going to ruin a cover CB to try and get a few pick 6s.

i disagree catching should be a big factor next to just getting in position. high catching should it make easier granted u are in position.

i dont know about u but i expect a higher success rate from a cb with high catching then a cb with poor or average catching given the same opportunity.

+1 and also allow fumbles to be returned

It was patched once since obviously it didn't work as intended. Since the patch had basically no effect, it's only logical to fix it properly this offseason.

Originally posted by sicarius
Catching absolutely should matter for a DB making an INT. It determines the catch radius, the ability to make it a clean pick, etc. But Catching itself should really have no bearing on if a dot suddenly falls down as if shot once he catches a ball.

Originally posted by Demboyz
i disagree catching should be a big factor next to just getting in position. high catching should it make easier granted u are in position.

i dont know about u but i expect a higher success rate from a cb with high catching then a cb with poor or average catching given the same opportunity.





Catching is already in the roll. If you want 80 catching than your Major atts will suffer and you will not get into position as often as a CB built properly and should still get less INTs. Probably a higher %/per attempt but fewer attempts will equal fewer INTs.

And this thread if you read the OP is about CBs falling down after the INT.

Originally posted by bedgood42

And this thread if you read the OP is about CBs falling down after the INT.

Exactly. There's actually a separate suggestion thread out there about making it easier to get an INT, and that truly is a separate issue. My main concern is what happens after the ball is caught. This fall down process is ridiculous.

Originally posted by sicarius
Exactly. There's actually a separate suggestion thread out there about making it easier to get an INT, and that truly is a separate issue. My main concern is what happens after the ball is caught. This fall down process is ridiculous.


about this issue I agree it is stupid that the CBs fall down. I think a 1/2 speed process as if the CB is trying to regain balance would make sense. Possibly make it last between 0-8 ticks based on the CBs catching/vision(how clean the catch was made) and agility (how quickly he regains balance).

This way you would have different levels of performance actually directly based on the dots build. That would be refreshing.

Originally posted by bedgood42
Originally posted by sicarius

Exactly. There's actually a separate suggestion thread out there about making it easier to get an INT, and that truly is a separate issue. My main concern is what happens after the ball is caught. This fall down process is ridiculous.


about this issue I agree it is stupid that the CBs fall down. I think a 1/2 speed process as if the CB is trying to regain balance would make sense. Possibly make it last between 0-8 ticks based on the CBs catching/vision(how clean the catch was made) and agility (how quickly he regains balance).

This way you would have different levels of performance actually directly based on the dots build. That would be refreshing.

I like this. +1

That would work to point - on balls where the defender catches it moving in the opposite direction of where he would try to run. But if it's a pass that's cleanly intercepted and already moving in a "positive" direction - anything that doesn't require a stop to change direction - there shouldn't be a slowdown, a fall down, or any other penalty to the defender.