Warrior General Games

Originally posted by evileyez
sorry, yes i meant formations. on the surface i think i'd be ok with expanded playbook of plays with a smaller set of formations.

i would rather see more plays and formations. I think it would separate the better coordinators from the average ones if the offenses had even more to play with.

Originally posted by ghuffman
i would rather see more plays and formations. I think it would separate the better coordinators from the average ones if the offenses had even more to play with.

more formations made me basically draw up generic stuff that tried to cover most things out of that formation, with slight leans towards personnel. i respect you but there is no way that more plays/formations would separate the better coordinators - at least on the D side. it would separate those that want/can spend even more time on coordinating.

i suppose it could be apathy but there was a time i'd do custom stuff and be rewarded pretty well as a result.

the sim is being pushed to the arcade-y feel, which is fine for mass market. but coordinating likely needs to go that direction too - on the realization that it will probably push a lot of us old timers away. but i feel pretty strongly thats where it needs to go for this game to get some new blood that will sustain the next 4 years of the game.

Originally posted by evileyez
more formations made me basically draw up generic stuff that tried to cover most things out of that formation, with slight leans towards personnel. i respect you but there is no way that more plays/formations would separate the better coordinators - at least on the D side. it would separate those that want/can spend even more time on coordinating.

i suppose it could be apathy but there was a time i'd do custom stuff and be rewarded pretty well as a result.

the sim is being pushed to the arcade-y feel, which is fine for mass market. but coordinating likely needs to go that direction too - on the realization that it will probably push a lot of us old timers away. but i feel pretty strongly thats where it needs to go for this game to get some new blood that will sustain the next 4 years of the game.

The reason i say that is i would like it if more offenses had identities of their own. Because of the set limit of plays and formations most offenses are predictable which is what i find boring. I guess that is why i think it would separate DCs. Good coordinating requires time and game planning. Not a lot of that going on anymore, because nothing new to deal with.

As far as sustaining the game I think game play is very important, but i think better awards would be more appealing.
Since it is a pay to play type of game then their should be some sort of pay for winning type of plan maybe in flex, but something to strive for if you own a team. Like 10K flex for the owner and 500 flex for each player on the team or something like that. Something that makes winning more meaningful besides a just a gif.

reducing roster sizes would force identities too. as a general statement, if you had 50 or even 45 you wouldn't be able to carry your 6 WR, and every archetype of HB and FB. not that i think the sim could handle that from a balancing perspective - you can't really compete in WL with a strong running game because passing is so explosive. inb4 someone says teams aren't built properly to run.

i know there are a few of us here that would be interested in exploring the reduction of rosters.

flex for performance is interesting. though going to the agent level i think would gravitate to "rich getting richer". instead, if you put the rewards on the guys doing all the work - owners, coordinators ... well that might be something.

Originally posted by evileyez


flex for performance is interesting. though going to the agent level i think would gravitate to "rich getting richer". instead, if you put the rewards on the guys doing all the work - owners, coordinators ... well that might be something.

you don't have to pay to coordinate. more than 1 player and you have to pay something, so i would say reward those guys and the owners who pay to have the teams

gotta disagree with huff on this. i havent touched a DAI in two seasons because its just too damn much work anymore with all the formations...by the time i actually get something built the sim will just change and i'll have to start all over again.

I sent Hays a flex reward for the crap gameplan that won Hood Gold

Originally posted by ghuffman
i would rather see more plays and formations. I think it would separate the better coordinators from the average ones if the offenses had even more to play with.
The opposite of that is true, as evileyez correctly noted. When the playbook expanded it just meant that everyone with a brain went to the same vanilla shit that everyone else uses. Once upon a time I suggested having teams pick 5 or so plays from each formation at the start of the season and you could only change one or two during the season. That would make it possible to gameplan against specific offenses and give different teams a flavor of their own. People won't go for that, though, because they'll be pissed if they didn't pick the overpowered plays that season.

Originally posted by hays23
gotta disagree with huff on this. i havent touched a DAI in two seasons because its just too damn much work anymore with all the formations...by the time i actually get something built the sim will just change and i'll have to start all over again.

i am sure you could drop your old AI in at lower levels and it would be fine. it shouldn't be easy at the highest level. the highest level is supposed to be the hardest, right.

Originally posted by jdbolick

The opposite of that is true, as evileyez correctly noted. When the playbook expanded it just meant that everyone with a brain went to the same vanilla shit that everyone else uses. Once upon a time I suggested having teams pick 5 or so plays from each formation at the start of the season and you could only change one or two during the season. That would make it possible to gameplan against specific offenses and give different teams a flavor of their own. People won't go for that, though, because they'll be pissed if they didn't pick the overpowered plays that season.

hmmmm......that makes no sense. limit plays even more, really?

Wow, sometimes i forget that this is not supposed to be a football simulated game.

Originally posted by ghuffman
hmmmm......that makes no sense. limit plays even more, really?
The more plays there are per formation, the less you can gameplan against any particular play. You have to use defenses that cover a whole bunch of plays, and therefore are vanilla in their application.

Originally posted by jdbolick

The more plays there are per formation, the less you can gameplan against any particular play. You have to use defenses that cover a whole bunch of plays, and therefore are vanilla in their application.

and that is what game planning is ....guessing to stop certain things

Originally posted by ghuffman
and that is what game planning is ....guessing to stop certain things
Ugh. The opposite is true. The more possibilities there are, the less you should be guessing at any one particular outcome.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Ugh. The opposite is true. The more possibilities there are, the less you should be guessing at any one particular outcome.

you are kidding me right. you want it to be handed to you so you don't have to game plan? A game plan is trying to guess through scouting what an offense might do. Yes, you can't stop everything and if you try to stop everything a good offense will destroy you or should destroy you.

just say u don't want to game plan...that would make more sense

I used to do a double CB/SS blitz to stop strong I sweeps back in the minors s15 , that was fun