Bump
Forum > Suggestions > Its Time for Bullet/Lofty to go.
raiderdav
offline
offline
Originally posted by sehorn31
+1, The QB should be smart enough to know when to put air under a pass like a Corner Route and when to zip it in there like a Slant Pass.
+1, The QB should be smart enough to know when to put air under a pass like a Corner Route and when to zip it in there like a Slant Pass.
cymaddux31
offline
offline
Originally posted by Newfan
The manner in which the ball is thrown should be a function of the type of play, the amount of coverage on a given receiver and dot Throwing/Str. Lofty passes on out routes is silly. Bullet passes on Go routes is silly. The QB should have to make a roll for each pass attempted.
strongly agree +1
The manner in which the ball is thrown should be a function of the type of play, the amount of coverage on a given receiver and dot Throwing/Str. Lofty passes on out routes is silly. Bullet passes on Go routes is silly. The QB should have to make a roll for each pass attempted.
strongly agree +1
RiverRat2
offline
offline
+1
Thr/Vis/Str/Con should decide.
It takes Con to throw into tight spots or to throw long balls.
My $.02
Thr/Vis/Str/Con should decide.
It takes Con to throw into tight spots or to throw long balls.
My $.02
gators1n96
offline
offline
Originally posted by Newfan
The manner in which the ball is thrown should be a function of the type of play, the amount of coverage on a given receiver and dot Throwing/Str. Lofty passes on out routes is silly. Bullet passes on Go routes is silly. The QB should have to make a roll for each pass attempted.
Vision should dictate how a QB 'fits' the ball in...be it lofty or bullet.
+1000
The manner in which the ball is thrown should be a function of the type of play, the amount of coverage on a given receiver and dot Throwing/Str. Lofty passes on out routes is silly. Bullet passes on Go routes is silly. The QB should have to make a roll for each pass attempted.
Vision should dictate how a QB 'fits' the ball in...be it lofty or bullet.
+1000
gators1n96
offline
offline
Originally posted by RiverRat2
+1
Thr/Vis/Str/Con should decide.
It takes Con to throw into tight spots or to throw long balls.
My $.02
or this.
+1
Thr/Vis/Str/Con should decide.
It takes Con to throw into tight spots or to throw long balls.
My $.02
or this.
Originally posted by Dubs48
but they play football so attempt to actually sim and make the game like football go attempt to shoot down a yello1 suggestion instead of a good suggestion
I am not needed to "shoot down" anything. The suggestion was NGTH to begin with, since Admins are against removing personal tactics.
If anyone in this thread thinks that they are going to change the way passing game is working to make the slider make sense to you then lol him, about 2 years late to that party.
but they play football so attempt to actually sim and make the game like football go attempt to shoot down a yello1 suggestion instead of a good suggestion
I am not needed to "shoot down" anything. The suggestion was NGTH to begin with, since Admins are against removing personal tactics.
If anyone in this thread thinks that they are going to change the way passing game is working to make the slider make sense to you then lol him, about 2 years late to that party.
fogie55
offline
offline
read through all of this and tend to agree with the concept, but not much discussion from the point brought out by Myd:
Originally posted by Myd
The only argument in favor of keeping it that I can think of is that it gives, in theory at least, an aspect to the dot's play-calling that the actual agent has control over rather than the coordinator. That being said, there has to be a better system.
+1 to some degree.
people already complain about not getting much in return for the glamour (300) positions. reducing features (like tactics to set) for the customer is rarely a good business plan... so while the suggestion makes a lot of sense, there has to be something this is replaced with to retain value of the experience for the customer before GLB would go for it
Originally posted by Myd
The only argument in favor of keeping it that I can think of is that it gives, in theory at least, an aspect to the dot's play-calling that the actual agent has control over rather than the coordinator. That being said, there has to be a better system.
+1 to some degree.
people already complain about not getting much in return for the glamour (300) positions. reducing features (like tactics to set) for the customer is rarely a good business plan... so while the suggestion makes a lot of sense, there has to be something this is replaced with to retain value of the experience for the customer before GLB would go for it
Newfan
offline
offline
Originally posted by tragula
I am not needed to "shoot down" anything. The suggestion was NGTH to begin with, since Admins are against removing personal tactics.
If anyone in this thread thinks that they are going to change the way passing game is working to make the slider make sense to you then lol him, about 2 years late to that party.
You would have made a compelling case for the horse and buggy sir.
I am not needed to "shoot down" anything. The suggestion was NGTH to begin with, since Admins are against removing personal tactics.
If anyone in this thread thinks that they are going to change the way passing game is working to make the slider make sense to you then lol him, about 2 years late to that party.
You would have made a compelling case for the horse and buggy sir.
Newfan
offline
offline
Originally posted by fogie55
people already complain about not getting much in return for the glamour (300) positions. reducing features (like tactics to set) for the customer is rarely a good business plan... so while the suggestion makes a lot of sense, there has to be something this is replaced with to retain value of the experience for the customer before GLB would go for it
As much value as the relaxed energy setting
people already complain about not getting much in return for the glamour (300) positions. reducing features (like tactics to set) for the customer is rarely a good business plan... so while the suggestion makes a lot of sense, there has to be something this is replaced with to retain value of the experience for the customer before GLB would go for it
As much value as the relaxed energy setting
SG✬21
offline
offline
Originally posted by RiverRat2
+1
Thr/Vis/Str/Con should decide.
It takes Con to throw into tight spots or to throw long balls.
My $.02
+1
Thr/Vis/Str/Con should decide.
It takes Con to throw into tight spots or to throw long balls.
My $.02
Alky
offline
offline
Originally posted by fogie55
people already complain about not getting much in return for the glamour (300) positions. reducing features (like tactics to set) for the customer is rarely a good business plan... so while the suggestion makes a lot of sense, there has to be something this is replaced with to retain value of the experience for the customer before GLB would go for it
Well you get the "cool" stats with a glamour position. I could care less about a stupid slider for something that should be driven by the game engine. Just like the energy settings.
people already complain about not getting much in return for the glamour (300) positions. reducing features (like tactics to set) for the customer is rarely a good business plan... so while the suggestion makes a lot of sense, there has to be something this is replaced with to retain value of the experience for the customer before GLB would go for it
Well you get the "cool" stats with a glamour position. I could care less about a stupid slider for something that should be driven by the game engine. Just like the energy settings.
fogie55
offline
offline
Originally posted by Alky
Well you get the "cool" stats with a glamour position. I could care less about a stupid slider for something that should be driven by the game engine. Just like the energy settings.
I'm just saying "repeal and replace" rather than scrap it
Well you get the "cool" stats with a glamour position. I could care less about a stupid slider for something that should be driven by the game engine. Just like the energy settings.
I'm just saying "repeal and replace" rather than scrap it
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
