Originally posted by markm6770
Sweet. +1
Sweet. +1
Forum > Suggestions > Pass Blocking System Change
PhillyFossil
offline
offline
+1
Better stated and much simpler than my request for a Blocking Assignment Editor - which Bort was still mulling over last I knew. Something like this could be the solution he's looking for.
I would definitely use this.
And Novus is right too. Nothing is ever going to be "perfect" in this game, but this suggestion would inherently improve the game beyond where it stands now.
Better stated and much simpler than my request for a Blocking Assignment Editor - which Bort was still mulling over last I knew. Something like this could be the solution he's looking for.
I would definitely use this.
And Novus is right too. Nothing is ever going to be "perfect" in this game, but this suggestion would inherently improve the game beyond where it stands now.
-1
The reality is Bort would have to focus on improvements for each o-line blocking 'logic'.
I get that the opponent wouldn't really know for sure what the opponent was using, but I feel like by splitting Bort's efforts into multiple o-line blocking logics we would just end up with multiple crappy o-line blocking logics.
Everyone would just shift to using the one that was the 'least crappy', and of course that one would still have it's flaws (because Bort would be devoting time/effort into all of them).
The reality is Bort would have to focus on improvements for each o-line blocking 'logic'.
I get that the opponent wouldn't really know for sure what the opponent was using, but I feel like by splitting Bort's efforts into multiple o-line blocking logics we would just end up with multiple crappy o-line blocking logics.
Everyone would just shift to using the one that was the 'least crappy', and of course that one would still have it's flaws (because Bort would be devoting time/effort into all of them).
We_Rule
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
-1
The reality is Bort would have to focus on improvements for each o-line blocking 'logic'.
I get that the opponent wouldn't really know for sure what the opponent was using, but I feel like by splitting Bort's efforts into multiple o-line blocking logics we would just end up with multiple crappy o-line blocking logics.
Everyone would just shift to using the one that was the 'least crappy', and of course that one would still have it's flaws (because Bort would be devoting time/effort into all of them).
Oh NOES!!!!!!!!!!!! Bort might have to do more work! We can't possibly have that.......
-1
The reality is Bort would have to focus on improvements for each o-line blocking 'logic'.
I get that the opponent wouldn't really know for sure what the opponent was using, but I feel like by splitting Bort's efforts into multiple o-line blocking logics we would just end up with multiple crappy o-line blocking logics.
Everyone would just shift to using the one that was the 'least crappy', and of course that one would still have it's flaws (because Bort would be devoting time/effort into all of them).
Oh NOES!!!!!!!!!!!! Bort might have to do more work! We can't possibly have that.......
bigtisme
offline
offline
So GLB is making lots of updates to fix blocking bugs...and now you want to add 4 new blocking schemes. This seems to be just asking for more bugs.
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by bigtisme
So GLB is making lots of updates to fix blocking bugs...and now you want to add 4 new blocking schemes. This seems to be just asking for more bugs.
That's the thing though... Bort is trying to come up THE ONE TRUE BLOCKING SCHEME THAT CAN'T EVER BE CHEAPLY EXPLOITED BUT DOESN'T INSTA-BLOCK EVERY BLITZ... OF DESTINY!!!
That scheme does not exist.
It's like trying to come up with a single defensive play that can't ever be cheaply exploited but that doesn't stop every play for a 2-yard loss. Such a SINGLE play does not exist. That's why, from the get-go, Bort has always given the defense multiple plays to use. Sure, it would be easier for Bort to just give the defense one play to use, but y'know what? It sure wouldn't be as fun. And if OC's ever figured out how to break that one defensive play, then the game would become utterly pointless.
...
Right now, Bort keeps trying to give the offense just one blocking scheme to use. And DCs keep figuring out how to break that one blocking scheme, so then Bort just switches what that one blocking scheme is. And DCs figure out how to break that one scheme, and Bort switches to another scheme -- again, just one at a time. And DCs keep figuring out how to break them.
If Bort gave us 5 blocking schemes to choose from, even if DCs figured out how to break all 5 of them, they'd still have to put in the effort to scout each opponent and figure out which blocking scheme they'll probably use, and OCs would at least have the option of switching up the blocking scheme from game to game to try to throw DCs off.
Y'know... JUST LIKE IN FOOTBALL.
So GLB is making lots of updates to fix blocking bugs...and now you want to add 4 new blocking schemes. This seems to be just asking for more bugs.
That's the thing though... Bort is trying to come up THE ONE TRUE BLOCKING SCHEME THAT CAN'T EVER BE CHEAPLY EXPLOITED BUT DOESN'T INSTA-BLOCK EVERY BLITZ... OF DESTINY!!!
That scheme does not exist.
It's like trying to come up with a single defensive play that can't ever be cheaply exploited but that doesn't stop every play for a 2-yard loss. Such a SINGLE play does not exist. That's why, from the get-go, Bort has always given the defense multiple plays to use. Sure, it would be easier for Bort to just give the defense one play to use, but y'know what? It sure wouldn't be as fun. And if OC's ever figured out how to break that one defensive play, then the game would become utterly pointless.
...
Right now, Bort keeps trying to give the offense just one blocking scheme to use. And DCs keep figuring out how to break that one blocking scheme, so then Bort just switches what that one blocking scheme is. And DCs figure out how to break that one scheme, and Bort switches to another scheme -- again, just one at a time. And DCs keep figuring out how to break them.
If Bort gave us 5 blocking schemes to choose from, even if DCs figured out how to break all 5 of them, they'd still have to put in the effort to scout each opponent and figure out which blocking scheme they'll probably use, and OCs would at least have the option of switching up the blocking scheme from game to game to try to throw DCs off.
Y'know... JUST LIKE IN FOOTBALL.
bigtisme
offline
offline
I agree. In a perfect world it would be better to have 5 different schemes. I just dont see it happening without bugs like you guys do.
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by bigtisme
I agree. In a perfect world it would be better to have 5 different schemes. I just dont see it happening without bugs like you guys do.
Of course they'll have bugs. No blocking scheme WON'T have bugs.
WHICH IS MY WHOLE POINT. Bort will NEVER come up with a single, perfectly bug-free blocking scheme. But he keeps trying.
Instead of trying to create 1 perfect blocking scheme (which he can't do), he should create 5 good (but not perfect) ones (which he CAN do), and then let us pick and choose which ones to use from game to game, while the defense tries to figure out which scheme we're going to use for each game.
I agree. In a perfect world it would be better to have 5 different schemes. I just dont see it happening without bugs like you guys do.
Of course they'll have bugs. No blocking scheme WON'T have bugs.
WHICH IS MY WHOLE POINT. Bort will NEVER come up with a single, perfectly bug-free blocking scheme. But he keeps trying.
Instead of trying to create 1 perfect blocking scheme (which he can't do), he should create 5 good (but not perfect) ones (which he CAN do), and then let us pick and choose which ones to use from game to game, while the defense tries to figure out which scheme we're going to use for each game.
Edited by Novus on Aug 30, 2012 11:37:34
bigtisme
offline
offline
Originally posted by Novus
Of course they'll have bugs. .
-1 in this case.
I'm guessing you dont mean bugs...but rather the blocking scheme will have holes in it?
In that case I still go back to what I said.
Of course they'll have bugs. .
-1 in this case.
I'm guessing you dont mean bugs...but rather the blocking scheme will have holes in it?
In that case I still go back to what I said.
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by bigtisme
Originally posted by Novus
Of course they'll have bugs. .
-1 in this case.
I'm guessing you dont mean bugs...but rather the blocking scheme will have holes in it?
In that case I still go back to what I said.
What you and I call "holes," an angry OC will call "bugs." Let's not get mired in semantics here.
Bigtisme, put yourself into an OC's shoes for a moment, and consider these two scenarios:
SCENARIO #1
You only have 1 blocking scheme available to use. DCs know how to break it and can get defenders into the backfield with regularity -- and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
SCENARIO #2
You have 5 different blocking schemes available to use. DCs know how to break each one of them and can get defenders into the backfield with regularity -- IF they choose the correct blitzing scheme against the correct blocking scheme. But you as the OC have 5 different blocking schemes you can choose from, so you can change it up from game to game. That forces DCs to guess which scheme you'll use -- and risk guessing wrong and getting burned.
I know which scenario I prefer: #2. I really don't get why you prefer #1, other than that it will be less work for Bort.
Sorry, but sometimes getting things right means doing more work. Hence why Bort put in the effort to give us a couple of hundred offensive plays and a somewhat customizable defensive play creator when it would've been easier to just give us a playbook of 10 offensive plays and 10 defensive plays and say "Have fun, guys!" while he went skiiing.
Originally posted by Novus
Of course they'll have bugs. .
-1 in this case.
I'm guessing you dont mean bugs...but rather the blocking scheme will have holes in it?
In that case I still go back to what I said.
What you and I call "holes," an angry OC will call "bugs." Let's not get mired in semantics here.
Bigtisme, put yourself into an OC's shoes for a moment, and consider these two scenarios:
SCENARIO #1
You only have 1 blocking scheme available to use. DCs know how to break it and can get defenders into the backfield with regularity -- and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
SCENARIO #2
You have 5 different blocking schemes available to use. DCs know how to break each one of them and can get defenders into the backfield with regularity -- IF they choose the correct blitzing scheme against the correct blocking scheme. But you as the OC have 5 different blocking schemes you can choose from, so you can change it up from game to game. That forces DCs to guess which scheme you'll use -- and risk guessing wrong and getting burned.
I know which scenario I prefer: #2. I really don't get why you prefer #1, other than that it will be less work for Bort.
Sorry, but sometimes getting things right means doing more work. Hence why Bort put in the effort to give us a couple of hundred offensive plays and a somewhat customizable defensive play creator when it would've been easier to just give us a playbook of 10 offensive plays and 10 defensive plays and say "Have fun, guys!" while he went skiiing.
Skoll Wolfrun
offline
offline
Originally posted by bigtisme
-1 in this case.
I'm guessing you dont mean bugs...but rather the blocking scheme will have holes in it?
In that case I still go back to what I said.
+1
Have we gotten any blocking schemes that do not have either have bugs or a hole in it?
Honestly, I was one of the early DCs that build their D based around the Overload Blitz. There was only 1 solution to it and many OCs adopted it (Blocking TEs). There could have been other solutions similar to the OP (block left, block right, etc).
But we have been kicking around this current blocking scheme set up for over a year and it still have bugs and holes.
Realistically, would it be easier to keep trying to fix the broken 1 scheme or develop a scheme that works against the hole, but creates another one elsewhere?
-1 in this case.
I'm guessing you dont mean bugs...but rather the blocking scheme will have holes in it?
In that case I still go back to what I said.
+1
Have we gotten any blocking schemes that do not have either have bugs or a hole in it?
Honestly, I was one of the early DCs that build their D based around the Overload Blitz. There was only 1 solution to it and many OCs adopted it (Blocking TEs). There could have been other solutions similar to the OP (block left, block right, etc).
But we have been kicking around this current blocking scheme set up for over a year and it still have bugs and holes.
Realistically, would it be easier to keep trying to fix the broken 1 scheme or develop a scheme that works against the hole, but creates another one elsewhere?
Novus
offline
offline
And to anyone who thinks the one current blocking scheme is just fine... as much-improved as it is over past schemes, we all know that it's just a matter of time before some DC somewhere figures out how to break it, and then it's game over. Because it always happens, and always will.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
