I think the DPC should have a custom formation option if we cant have free movement..
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Will there ever be a Trips Right? Play action/motion? Custom Movement for D-line? etc.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
More formations just creates bigger headaches for DCs for a half season to two seasons (depending on the DC) and then the new formations become as useless as the old ones. What you need is for QBs to throw to spots better in order to avoid the coverage and not have the coverage dots able to make deflections as easily when the receiver is between them and the ball.
Yes because all the new formations have become useless. Nobody uses Trips, Single Back Big, and Big I anymore. What was I thinking?
Also the problem in this game is by far not where that the defense is deflecting balls too easily.
More formations just creates bigger headaches for DCs for a half season to two seasons (depending on the DC) and then the new formations become as useless as the old ones. What you need is for QBs to throw to spots better in order to avoid the coverage and not have the coverage dots able to make deflections as easily when the receiver is between them and the ball.
Yes because all the new formations have become useless. Nobody uses Trips, Single Back Big, and Big I anymore. What was I thinking?
Also the problem in this game is by far not where that the defense is deflecting balls too easily.
Edited by bhall43 on May 13, 2013 23:16:32
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Novus
But then which side is considered to be the "strong" side? Is it the side the TE is on, or the side the 3 WRs are on?
Remember, all the other formations that exist in GLB right now are based on the TE being on the right side, and thus the right side is the strong side. That affects all sorts of stuff on the defense: HB coverage options include "strong" and "weak," and all the zones are defined as "strong" and "weak" as well. Plus the Strong Safety defaults to the strong side of the field and the Free Safety defaults to the weak side of the field.
So for the Trips Right formation, if you consider the left side of the formation to be the strong side just because the TE is there, suddenly everything on the defensive side of the ball has to get reversed -- EVERYTHING -- just for all the plays in that one formation, since it would be the only formation where the strong side is on the left.
If instead you consider the right side of the formation to be the strong side for consistency's sake, you'll confuse the fuck out of a lot players because they'll think, "Wait a sec, isn't the strong side supposed to be the side the TE is on?" And then for the rest of this game's existence, we'll have people posting whine threads about how stupid that is in GLB Main. (Think the confusion would settle down after a while? Think again. People still don't get how MVP Eq gets handed out.)
And in the end, what would be the point of having Trips Right anyway? The formation would simply be the mirror-image of the current Trips formation, so you could probably just mirror image all of the current Trips plays for Trips Right, which renders the whole exercise pointless anyway.
I would be flat-out amazed if Trips Right ever becomes part of the game. It really wouldn't add anything except inconsistency and confusion.
You are confusing yourself too much. It really won't be that difficult. Outside of it being just another formation to make inputs and outputs for.
But then which side is considered to be the "strong" side? Is it the side the TE is on, or the side the 3 WRs are on?
Remember, all the other formations that exist in GLB right now are based on the TE being on the right side, and thus the right side is the strong side. That affects all sorts of stuff on the defense: HB coverage options include "strong" and "weak," and all the zones are defined as "strong" and "weak" as well. Plus the Strong Safety defaults to the strong side of the field and the Free Safety defaults to the weak side of the field.
So for the Trips Right formation, if you consider the left side of the formation to be the strong side just because the TE is there, suddenly everything on the defensive side of the ball has to get reversed -- EVERYTHING -- just for all the plays in that one formation, since it would be the only formation where the strong side is on the left.
If instead you consider the right side of the formation to be the strong side for consistency's sake, you'll confuse the fuck out of a lot players because they'll think, "Wait a sec, isn't the strong side supposed to be the side the TE is on?" And then for the rest of this game's existence, we'll have people posting whine threads about how stupid that is in GLB Main. (Think the confusion would settle down after a while? Think again. People still don't get how MVP Eq gets handed out.)
And in the end, what would be the point of having Trips Right anyway? The formation would simply be the mirror-image of the current Trips formation, so you could probably just mirror image all of the current Trips plays for Trips Right, which renders the whole exercise pointless anyway.
I would be flat-out amazed if Trips Right ever becomes part of the game. It really wouldn't add anything except inconsistency and confusion.
You are confusing yourself too much. It really won't be that difficult. Outside of it being just another formation to make inputs and outputs for.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
I agree. Some of those, throw the ball up there throws need to have a lot more "loft" on them to give the WR a chance to adjust to the ball in the air a bit. When a QB just bombs it out there and lets a speedy player try and get under it, he does it when the defender has been beat or when he wants to give his guy a chance for it in single coverage and to box the other guy out on a route.
In this game, a lot of the essential dynamics between the receiver and the defender just aren't programmed.
A 6'8" Possession TE who is being covered by a 5'8" CB or LB really should have no trouble keeping the ball away from the defender with a little targeted passing by the QB. The QB shouldn't be hitting that guy on the numbers, he should be putting the ball at a height and in a spot the defender has no chance at it.
But in GLB the defender still has a chance at the ball even with that height mismatch and even if the TE is between the D and the direction of the catch.
They don't need more loft. They need to be thrown earlier so that the ball is in stride. Most of the throws made are after the WR has hit a certain point in their route that makes them stop and/or comeback for the ball.
And you are making the calculation far too simplistic. All those things are in the calculation. It is just more to it than that. Which there should be.
I agree. Some of those, throw the ball up there throws need to have a lot more "loft" on them to give the WR a chance to adjust to the ball in the air a bit. When a QB just bombs it out there and lets a speedy player try and get under it, he does it when the defender has been beat or when he wants to give his guy a chance for it in single coverage and to box the other guy out on a route.
In this game, a lot of the essential dynamics between the receiver and the defender just aren't programmed.
A 6'8" Possession TE who is being covered by a 5'8" CB or LB really should have no trouble keeping the ball away from the defender with a little targeted passing by the QB. The QB shouldn't be hitting that guy on the numbers, he should be putting the ball at a height and in a spot the defender has no chance at it.
But in GLB the defender still has a chance at the ball even with that height mismatch and even if the TE is between the D and the direction of the catch.
They don't need more loft. They need to be thrown earlier so that the ball is in stride. Most of the throws made are after the WR has hit a certain point in their route that makes them stop and/or comeback for the ball.
And you are making the calculation far too simplistic. All those things are in the calculation. It is just more to it than that. Which there should be.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Uncle Si
I think the DPC should have a custom formation option if we cant have free movement..
At this point the formations are pretty much custom for what is recognizable by GLB standards. The things they would be adding are things that would be unlike what we have right now available.
I think the DPC should have a custom formation option if we cant have free movement..
At this point the formations are pretty much custom for what is recognizable by GLB standards. The things they would be adding are things that would be unlike what we have right now available.
Dr. E
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
More formations just creates bigger headaches for DCs for a half season to two seasons (depending on the DC) and then the new formations become as useless as the old ones. What you need is for QBs to throw to spots better in order to avoid the coverage and not have the coverage dots able to make deflections as easily when the receiver is between them and the ball.
It's just University play, but http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2345864&pbp_id=7961487 it's also a nice job leading the receiver. I've seen this QB throw some that were even bigger better jobs at leading.
More formations just creates bigger headaches for DCs for a half season to two seasons (depending on the DC) and then the new formations become as useless as the old ones. What you need is for QBs to throw to spots better in order to avoid the coverage and not have the coverage dots able to make deflections as easily when the receiver is between them and the ball.
It's just University play, but http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2345864&pbp_id=7961487 it's also a nice job leading the receiver. I've seen this QB throw some that were even bigger better jobs at leading.
4WR Single Back Trips right?
Wr1 still lines up on weak side, 3 WR's on right , no TE?
just a random thought
Wr1 still lines up on weak side, 3 WR's on right , no TE?
just a random thought
Originally posted by Bane
4WR Single Back Trips right?
Wr1 still lines up on weak side, 3 WR's on right , no TE?
just a random thought
That would work...both left and right.
4WR Single Back Trips right?
Wr1 still lines up on weak side, 3 WR's on right , no TE?
just a random thought
That would work...both left and right.
Jamaicankid21
offline
offline
Has a scrambling QB build been successful? Not rushing but scrambling and not against a bunch of CPU teams. Against actual talent. I was thinking of building one but everyone at the high elite levels seem to have Deep passer or Pocket Passer. I wasn't sure if scrambler was a bad idea.
Edited by Jamaican King on May 14, 2013 12:40:26
Originally posted by Jamaican King
Has a scrambling QB build been successful? Not rushing but scrambling and not against a bunch of CPU teams. Against actual talent. I was thinking of building one but everyone at the high elite levels seem to have Deep passer or Pocket Passer. I wasn't sure if scrambler was a bad idea.
Only effective if your friends don't retire your dots on day 41.
Has a scrambling QB build been successful? Not rushing but scrambling and not against a bunch of CPU teams. Against actual talent. I was thinking of building one but everyone at the high elite levels seem to have Deep passer or Pocket Passer. I wasn't sure if scrambler was a bad idea.
Only effective if your friends don't retire your dots on day 41.
Jamaicankid21
offline
offline
Originally posted by coachingubigr
Only effective if your friends don't retire your dots on day 41.
haha
. But atleast my day 41 was exciting for once.
Honestly though have you seen an effective one or do people just tend not to build them?
Only effective if your friends don't retire your dots on day 41.
haha
. But atleast my day 41 was exciting for once.Honestly though have you seen an effective one or do people just tend not to build them?
Originally posted by Novus
But then which side is considered to be the "strong" side? Is it the side the TE is on, or the side the 3 WRs are on?
Remember, all the other formations that exist in GLB right now are based on the TE being on the right side, and thus the right side is the strong side. That affects all sorts of stuff on the defense: HB coverage options include "strong" and "weak," and all the zones are defined as "strong" and "weak" as well. Plus the Strong Safety defaults to the strong side of the field and the Free Safety defaults to the weak side of the field.
So for the Trips Right formation, if you consider the left side of the formation to be the strong side just because the TE is there, suddenly everything on the defensive side of the ball has to get reversed -- EVERYTHING -- just for all the plays in that one formation, since it would be the only formation where the strong side is on the left.
If instead you consider the right side of the formation to be the strong side for consistency's sake, you'll confuse the fuck out of a lot players because they'll think, "Wait a sec, isn't the strong side supposed to be the side the TE is on?" And then for the rest of this game's existence, we'll have people posting whine threads about how stupid that is in GLB Main. (Think the confusion would settle down after a while? Think again. People still don't get how MVP Eq gets handed out.)
And in the end, what would be the point of having Trips Right anyway? The formation would simply be the mirror-image of the current Trips formation, so you could probably just mirror image all of the current Trips plays for Trips Right, which renders the whole exercise pointless anyway.
I would be flat-out amazed if Trips Right ever becomes part of the game. It really wouldn't add anything except inconsistency and confusion.
just always consider the right side the strong side? i feel like people just like to make stupid excuses for shit. right side/strong side, left side/weak side. people over think things way too much.
But then which side is considered to be the "strong" side? Is it the side the TE is on, or the side the 3 WRs are on?
Remember, all the other formations that exist in GLB right now are based on the TE being on the right side, and thus the right side is the strong side. That affects all sorts of stuff on the defense: HB coverage options include "strong" and "weak," and all the zones are defined as "strong" and "weak" as well. Plus the Strong Safety defaults to the strong side of the field and the Free Safety defaults to the weak side of the field.
So for the Trips Right formation, if you consider the left side of the formation to be the strong side just because the TE is there, suddenly everything on the defensive side of the ball has to get reversed -- EVERYTHING -- just for all the plays in that one formation, since it would be the only formation where the strong side is on the left.
If instead you consider the right side of the formation to be the strong side for consistency's sake, you'll confuse the fuck out of a lot players because they'll think, "Wait a sec, isn't the strong side supposed to be the side the TE is on?" And then for the rest of this game's existence, we'll have people posting whine threads about how stupid that is in GLB Main. (Think the confusion would settle down after a while? Think again. People still don't get how MVP Eq gets handed out.)
And in the end, what would be the point of having Trips Right anyway? The formation would simply be the mirror-image of the current Trips formation, so you could probably just mirror image all of the current Trips plays for Trips Right, which renders the whole exercise pointless anyway.
I would be flat-out amazed if Trips Right ever becomes part of the game. It really wouldn't add anything except inconsistency and confusion.
just always consider the right side the strong side? i feel like people just like to make stupid excuses for shit. right side/strong side, left side/weak side. people over think things way too much.
Originally posted by bhall43
Nothing is set in stone. But there are a number of formations in the works. But right now the focus is defensively.
Defensive? lol
Nothing is set in stone. But there are a number of formations in the works. But right now the focus is defensively.
Defensive? lol
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
