New Sticky Note

NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - Beta Chat

Re: Latest updates feedback

By setherick
11/16/2016 7:37 pm
WarEagle wrote:
Then the QBs would always target the short or hot routes, since they are under pressure nearly every down.

But, I guess that's better than taking 17 sacks in a game.


I'm good with a 3-5 yard gain rather than a 6-10 yard loss. Or 20+ interceptions.

Right now, there is an obvious problem with the timing of short routes. The QB waits until the receiver finishes the route to throw the ball, but on the short route, the receiver finishes so quickly that he ends up free running the route. I've noticed this most clearly with drag plays (so the 212 Weak Flood and the 311 PA TE flat play).

Re: Latest updates feedback

By RLWJR
11/19/2016 6:18 am
lellow2011 wrote:
Speaking of changes, I suggest getting rid of the formation sliders in the play calling matrix. A better system might be to be able to rate a play from 1-5 in how much you like it and thus increase the likely hood it would get called. Or allow us to create packages of plays that we could set to a certain percentage. The current play calling matrix seems convoluted and confusing, basically it makes it difficult to determine what your team is even going to run (this is even difficult for guys who have been playing this game for a while). It seems the only way to ensure certain plays get called is to use rules or to really trim down your playbook.


I don't have the option to down vote this idea, but if I did have the option I would down vote it.

Re: Latest updates feedback

By lellow2011
11/19/2016 9:16 am
RLWJR wrote:
lellow2011 wrote:
Speaking of changes, I suggest getting rid of the formation sliders in the play calling matrix. A better system might be to be able to rate a play from 1-5 in how much you like it and thus increase the likely hood it would get called. Or allow us to create packages of plays that we could set to a certain percentage. The current play calling matrix seems convoluted and confusing, basically it makes it difficult to determine what your team is even going to run (this is even difficult for guys who have been playing this game for a while). It seems the only way to ensure certain plays get called is to use rules or to really trim down your playbook.


I don't have the option to down vote this idea, but if I did have the option I would down vote it.


What's to dislike about simplifying the play calling? For defense we are talking about 3 different set of sliders to determine what play will be called and then those may not even match the plays selected in the playbook. Perhaps you dislike my ideas for how to do it, but I think most can agree that the current system in place is messy at best.

Re: Latest updates feedback

By RLWJR
11/19/2016 5:07 pm
lellow2011 wrote:
RLWJR wrote:
lellow2011 wrote:
Speaking of changes, I suggest getting rid of the formation sliders in the play calling matrix. A better system might be to be able to rate a play from 1-5 in how much you like it and thus increase the likely hood it would get called. Or allow us to create packages of plays that we could set to a certain percentage. The current play calling matrix seems convoluted and confusing, basically it makes it difficult to determine what your team is even going to run (this is even difficult for guys who have been playing this game for a while). It seems the only way to ensure certain plays get called is to use rules or to really trim down your playbook.


I don't have the option to down vote this idea, but if I did have the option I would down vote it.


What's to dislike about simplifying the play calling? For defense we are talking about 3 different set of sliders to determine what play will be called and then those may not even match the plays selected in the playbook. Perhaps you dislike my ideas for how to do it, but I think most can agree that the current system in place is messy at best.


The fact that it isn't a simple process is what makes it challenging. It's what seperates an owner who is a good strategist from one that just lets the AI do his game planning. Knowing how to maneuver the sliders, and how multiple plays from the same formation are going to affect your play selection is a skill.

If you are talking about an improvement to the way the UI is implemented, then for the most part I'm indifferent. If you are talking about removing even more strategy from the game, then I am whole heartedly against it. The last thing I want is for this game to degenerate to just a drafting sim.

For example, I believe that displaying the base ratings on players was a move in the wrong direction. Why even set up your own skill weights if the base rating is just provided for you? Yeah, you may want to tweak the numbers to better fit your game plan, but there is much less skill involved in that as opposed to not knowing exactly what the base rating is to begin with. Huge chunk of strategy went out the door on that one, so I'm not in favor of dumbing down the game planning, if that is what you are proposing.

Re: Latest updates feedback

By lellow2011
11/19/2016 5:33 pm
RLWJR wrote:
lellow2011 wrote:
RLWJR wrote:
lellow2011 wrote:
Speaking of changes, I suggest getting rid of the formation sliders in the play calling matrix. A better system might be to be able to rate a play from 1-5 in how much you like it and thus increase the likely hood it would get called. Or allow us to create packages of plays that we could set to a certain percentage. The current play calling matrix seems convoluted and confusing, basically it makes it difficult to determine what your team is even going to run (this is even difficult for guys who have been playing this game for a while). It seems the only way to ensure certain plays get called is to use rules or to really trim down your playbook.


I don't have the option to down vote this idea, but if I did have the option I would down vote it.


What's to dislike about simplifying the play calling? For defense we are talking about 3 different set of sliders to determine what play will be called and then those may not even match the plays selected in the playbook. Perhaps you dislike my ideas for how to do it, but I think most can agree that the current system in place is messy at best.


The fact that it isn't a simple process is what makes it challenging. It's what seperates an owner who is a good strategist from one that just lets the AI do his game planning. Knowing how to maneuver the sliders, and how multiple plays from the same formation are going to affect your play selection is a skill.

If you are talking about an improvement to the way the UI is implemented, then for the most part I'm indifferent. If you are talking about removing even more strategy from the game, then I am whole heartedly against it. The last thing I want is for this game to degenerate to just a drafting sim.

For example, I believe that displaying the base ratings on players was a move in the wrong direction. Why even set up your own skill weights if the base rating is just provided for you? Yeah, you may want to tweak the numbers to better fit your game plan, but there is much less skill involved in that as opposed to not knowing exactly what the base rating is to begin with. Huge chunk of strategy went out the door on that one, so I'm not in favor of dumbing down the game planning, if that is what you are proposing.


The base player ratings mean very little to me, because they do not really weigh the attributes that matter the most over others well. I have guys that I have rated 15-20 points over the base rating that play quite well.

Re: Latest updates feedback

By RLWJR
11/19/2016 8:36 pm
lellow2011 wrote:

The base player ratings mean very little to me, because they do not really weigh the attributes that matter the most over others well. I have guys that I have rated 15-20 points over the base rating that play quite well.


Yeah, I do too, but that wasn't the point. The point was that before they were provided, you actually had to do some experimenting and learning what works and what doesn't. Providing the base ratings narrows the gap tremendously between those that have enough skill to land in the park with their estimations and those that don't. Providing the base rating puts everyone in the park to begin with. Some owners still find a way to escape the park, but that's a completely different conversation....

Re: Latest updates feedback

By WarEagle
11/19/2016 10:40 pm
Showing the default base ratings doesn't do anything except let us see the rating the Ai uses when evaluating trades.

The "recommended" ratings are the defaults based on your coach's opinion, and that isn't new.

There is no new advantage gained by seeing the default Ai base ratings. Seeing the ratings the Ai has for players doesn't tell you anything about how they will perform, and is probably misleading about that since they seem to not value the important attributes that do impact on field performance.
Last edited at 11/20/2016 9:19 am

Re: Latest updates feedback

By setherick
11/20/2016 1:53 pm
I usually just snicker when I see the default ratings for players because of how off they are from reality.

Re: Latest updates feedback

By lellow2011
11/20/2016 2:58 pm
setherick wrote:
I usually just snicker when I see the default ratings for players because of how off they are from reality.


Kind of like how safeties have their default set to somewhere around 80-100 for strength...

Re: Latest updates feedback

By setherick
11/20/2016 4:29 pm
lellow2011 wrote:
setherick wrote:
I usually just snicker when I see the default ratings for players because of how off they are from reality.


Kind of like how safeties have their default set to somewhere around 80-100 for strength...


How every position has ST too high for how it is used in the game...

My current favorite is Pass Rush skills for LBs. LBs absolute do NOT need pass rush since they blitz the gaps, and if they are fast enough, should not be picked up by anyone. Pass rush is a wasted attribute on LBs. However, on running plays, LBs single out the closest run blocker and go right for him rather than taking appropriate angles to the ball carrier, so Run Defense is absolutely essential.
Last edited at 11/20/2016 4:32 pm