 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Football Enhancements » The Rotational Strategy
emidas
I have said it for months: Conditioning, conditioning, conditioning. I am not a great playcaller by any stretch. I succeed due to conditioning.
January 27, 2014 at 06:49PM View BBCode
I am all for reducing conditioning's effectiveness so that we can have a more realistic sim (in regards to subs and formation packages). Enabling Shotgun running alone would do many things for us as well.I have said it for months: Conditioning, conditioning, conditioning. I am not a great playcaller by any stretch. I succeed due to conditioning.
emidas
I don't agree that six is too much. Honestly, part of the reason on why the rotational strategy is necessary to succeed is because you need to condense playcalling into four choices in a given situation. If I want to run the ball, there goes half my choices (because I don't want a team keying on my runs). So then what do I do? Not have screens or play action? Cut out a deep ball? I am not a fan of the four play limitations at all.
I see the merit in your argument about "too many options", but I also think that would make the sim less predictable. Five would be much better than four, but six would be better imo. This would also allow us to use Pro/I passing.
January 27, 2014 at 06:55PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jbzomal75
Six would be too much I think. I agree that four isn't enough though so I would like to see five, that would allow us to use both kinds of runs and still put in some passing variety. More than that and I think you dilute the already limited strategic element of the sim by allowing coaches to do too much. The need to sacrifice a little bit as far as play options adds a little more strategy to the sim. With six options you could do almost anything so it would probably come down more to who has the better players in determining the outcome of games more often.
I don't agree that six is too much. Honestly, part of the reason on why the rotational strategy is necessary to succeed is because you need to condense playcalling into four choices in a given situation. If I want to run the ball, there goes half my choices (because I don't want a team keying on my runs). So then what do I do? Not have screens or play action? Cut out a deep ball? I am not a fan of the four play limitations at all.
I see the merit in your argument about "too many options", but I also think that would make the sim less predictable. Five would be much better than four, but six would be better imo. This would also allow us to use Pro/I passing.
dirtdevil
Let me first say that I don't disagree with this at all. But I don't see it as an argument against a rotational strategy in SD. The opposite actually. Logically if cohesion comes with familiarity, having 5 guys for passing plays and 5 different guys for running plays would actually maximize both the cohesion and effectiveness of both line units. They only work on one set of plays rather than two, they still only work with the same guys, and they still dont get as tired in games. Potentially, that kind of solution might actually make the issue worse. That's why the fix here isn't necessarily as simple as it first looks.
January 27, 2014 at 07:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jbzomal75
My point about chemistry and cohesion was in a much broader sense than just within each game. More than any other position offensive lines usually stay pretty much the same in the NFL(except for injury) and usually sub out less often for solely strategic purposes than any other position. In other words, it's not so much a stamina issue as a cohesion or 'being on the same page' issue with OLs. That's because of the dynamics of blocking as a unit. Offensive linemen more than any other position have to be in synch with each other to execute the sometimes complex blocking schemes used by offenses nowadays, that's why you don't usually see OLs getting changed around much during a game in the NFL unless there's an injury. When it comes to the sometimes wholesale substitutions in this sim the ones at O-line bug me the most because of the realism factor.
Let me first say that I don't disagree with this at all. But I don't see it as an argument against a rotational strategy in SD. The opposite actually. Logically if cohesion comes with familiarity, having 5 guys for passing plays and 5 different guys for running plays would actually maximize both the cohesion and effectiveness of both line units. They only work on one set of plays rather than two, they still only work with the same guys, and they still dont get as tired in games. Potentially, that kind of solution might actually make the issue worse. That's why the fix here isn't necessarily as simple as it first looks.
dirtdevil
Edited because autocorrect on my iPad is a pain.
[Edited on 1-27-2014 by dirtdevil]
January 27, 2014 at 07:35PM View BBCode
If we're looking for a simple solution, even if temporarily, how about this: remove all formation depth chart options, including shotgun, from the o-line. The depth chart you set at all formations is the only one you get. I'd think fatigue would have be be lessened at the same time and we'd want to keep an eye on sack rates and ypc numbers to make sure it doesn't nerf something we don't want it to, but it would eliminate the ability to mass sub pass/run lines.Edited because autocorrect on my iPad is a pain.
[Edited on 1-27-2014 by dirtdevil]
jbzomal75
With six you would have most owners using pretty much all the same plays. You would have to add more plays to keep the strategic variety between teams.
The argument against rotating a whole line would be realism. The argument against a lot of partial subbing of lines would be cohesion.
January 28, 2014 at 04:12AM View BBCode
I don't agree that six is too much. Honestly, part of the reason on why the rotational strategy is necessary to succeed is because you need to condense playcalling into four choices in a given situation. If I want to run the ball, there goes half my choices (because I don't want a team keying on my runs). So then what do I do? Not have screens or play action? Cut out a deep ball? I am not a fan of the four play limitations at all.
I see the merit in your argument about "too many options", but I also think that would make the sim less predictable. Five would be much better than four, but six would be better imo. This would also allow us to use Pro/I passing.
With six you would have most owners using pretty much all the same plays. You would have to add more plays to keep the strategic variety between teams.
Let me first say that I don't disagree with this at all. But I don't see it as an argument against a rotational strategy in SD. The opposite actually. Logically if cohesion comes with familiarity, having 5 guys for passing plays and 5 different guys for running plays would actually maximize both the cohesion and effectiveness of both line units. They only work on one set of plays rather than two, they still only work with the same guys, and they still dont get as tired in games. Potentially, that kind of solution might actually make the issue worse. That's why the fix here isn't necessarily as simple as it first looks.
The argument against rotating a whole line would be realism. The argument against a lot of partial subbing of lines would be cohesion.
emidas
If we're trying to make this a realistic sim (which it seems that is our goal), then as a playcaller I should have access to my entire playbook at any given point. An offensive coordinator doesn't artificially limit his playcalling on a given down and distance. I would actually argue that due to the amount of plays available, you would see greater variety. More sideline passes, more passing out of the I/Pro, everything. Right now if I want to run the ball on any d&d, that takes half of my options.
February 05, 2014 at 09:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jbzomal75
I don't agree that six is too much. Honestly, part of the reason on why the rotational strategy is necessary to succeed is because you need to condense playcalling into four choices in a given situation. If I want to run the ball, there goes half my choices (because I don't want a team keying on my runs). So then what do I do? Not have screens or play action? Cut out a deep ball? I am not a fan of the four play limitations at all.
I see the merit in your argument about "too many options", but I also think that would make the sim less predictable. Five would be much better than four, but six would be better imo. This would also allow us to use Pro/I passing.
With six you would have most owners using pretty much all the same plays. You would have to add more plays to keep the strategic variety between teams.
If we're trying to make this a realistic sim (which it seems that is our goal), then as a playcaller I should have access to my entire playbook at any given point. An offensive coordinator doesn't artificially limit his playcalling on a given down and distance. I would actually argue that due to the amount of plays available, you would see greater variety. More sideline passes, more passing out of the I/Pro, everything. Right now if I want to run the ball on any d&d, that takes half of my options.
jbzomal75
I'm not sure it IS the goal. It should be, but there's a lot of other things that need done for realism's sake and I'm not seeing them getting done.
[quote]An offensive coordinator doesn't artificially limit his playcalling on a given down and distance. I would actually argue that due to the amount of plays available, you would see greater variety. More sideline passes, more passing out of the I/Pro, everything. Right now if I want to run the ball on any d&d, that takes half of my options.[/quote]
An offensive coordinator also doesn't assign percentage chances or roll dice to determine what plays he calls either. There's really not enough plays/formations to make it viable to add too many more options because each strategy will become more generic.
As far as sideline passes go, there's no real reason to use them other than for the 2 minute offense unless they have some other strategic advantage, which I don't think they do. Right now it's just a pass that has even more chance of being incomplete because of the increased chance that the WR will step out of bounds. That's part of the problem right there, because when you take the more situational passes like that out of the equation it doesn't really leave us very many options. That's one of the reasons why I don't consider this sim to have a lot strategic depth at the moment.
February 06, 2014 at 04:00AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote]If we're trying to make this a realistic sim (which it seems that is our goal), then as a playcaller I should have access to my entire playbook at any given point.[/quote]
I'm not sure it IS the goal. It should be, but there's a lot of other things that need done for realism's sake and I'm not seeing them getting done.
[quote]An offensive coordinator doesn't artificially limit his playcalling on a given down and distance. I would actually argue that due to the amount of plays available, you would see greater variety. More sideline passes, more passing out of the I/Pro, everything. Right now if I want to run the ball on any d&d, that takes half of my options.[/quote]
An offensive coordinator also doesn't assign percentage chances or roll dice to determine what plays he calls either. There's really not enough plays/formations to make it viable to add too many more options because each strategy will become more generic.
As far as sideline passes go, there's no real reason to use them other than for the 2 minute offense unless they have some other strategic advantage, which I don't think they do. Right now it's just a pass that has even more chance of being incomplete because of the increased chance that the WR will step out of bounds. That's part of the problem right there, because when you take the more situational passes like that out of the equation it doesn't really leave us very many options. That's one of the reasons why I don't consider this sim to have a lot strategic depth at the moment.
Admin
The number four wasn't meant to limit options; it seemed like a reasonable compromise between flexibility and UI design. Of course, at the time I designed it there were far fewer play options, and those options will continue to grow. I am working on increasing the number of options to six, plus adding a Very Long strategy for all downs.
Chris
March 28, 2014 at 06:09AM View BBCode
Originally posted by jbzomal75
Six would be too much I think. I agree that four isn't enough though so I would like to see five, that would allow us to use both kinds of runs and still put in some passing variety. More than that and I think you dilute the already limited strategic element of the sim by allowing coaches to do too much. The need to sacrifice a little bit as far as play options adds a little more strategy to the sim. With six options you could do almost anything so it would probably come down more to who has the better players in determining the outcome of games more often.
The number four wasn't meant to limit options; it seemed like a reasonable compromise between flexibility and UI design. Of course, at the time I designed it there were far fewer play options, and those options will continue to grow. I am working on increasing the number of options to six, plus adding a Very Long strategy for all downs.
Chris
Pages: 1 2