i misunderstood what he said and thought that the different levels of involvement would be tied to the 4 recruiting difficulties, and not be listed as its own option.Originally Posted by JeffHCross
i misunderstood what he said and thought that the different levels of involvement would be tied to the 4 recruiting difficulties, and not be listed as its own option.
Y'know, TIM, until this discussion tonight, I had completely forgotten how utterly different the "Gameplan" design was in NFL Head Coach 09 versus NCAA. In Head Coach 09, you could have up to three gameplans ready for a game. Each of those gameplans were chosen during the week, during an individual day's practice. Now, since there's really no day-to-day practice in NCAA, that would have to be changed somehow. But the overall mechanic is applicable.
This is a terribly small image, but it's the only one I can find:
It says "Blitz the QB", "Coaches work with WR" and "Improve Blitz Plays" are the three choices shown in this case. I can't see the details in that image, but in general each "Gameplan" gave you ~5 instances to give a certain part of your team a "bonus". Maybe you wanted a bonus to your QB on passing plays, or your HB on running plays, or your DBs versus passing plays.
In theory, they could take the idea behind the current Gameplan system and adapt some of what Head Coach 09 had ... "Conservative" for "Big Run" becomes 3X per game that you can "encourage the HB to hold onto the ball".
This could combine with TIM's ideas and what others have said on the last page ... that it should be a natural extension of attributes, as much as possible. But the "bonus" could be used to "emphasize" that natural tendency. Or maybe you tell some fumblitis-prone Freshman to hold onto the ball for dear life.
Yeah, I did the same early on.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
since its the colt's game vs new england, the options read as follow:
blitz the qb - put more pressure on tom brady while blitzing
coaches work with wr - focus on something something something....cant read it very well.
improve blitz plays - increase the effectiveness of your top 5 blitz plays
I don't really like the idea of bonuses or boosts to begin with, which is why I don't like the current gameplan adjustments. I think the adjustments right now could be embedded under a player's tendency within a certain degree of the awareness, discipline, and position specific skill ratings. My suggestion for a gameplan overhaul is for the game to simply condense your playbook accordingly to the specificity of your coach philosophy sliders. And your gameplan is available under the "Ask Coach" option in-game. The result: an A+ coach rating would be very beneficial in calling the best plays given the situation, whereas a lower graded coach will be more vanilla.Y'know, TIM, until this discussion tonight, I had completely forgotten how utterly different the "Gameplan" design was in NFL Head Coach 09 versus NCAA. In Head Coach 09, you could have up to three gameplans ready for a game. Each of those gameplans were chosen during the week, during an individual day's practice. Now, since there's really no day-to-day practice in NCAA, that would have to be changed somehow. But the overall mechanic is applicable.
This is a terribly small image, but it's the only one I can find:
It says "Blitz the QB", "Coaches work with WR" and "Improve Blitz Plays" are the three choices shown in this case. I can't see the details in that image, but in general each "Gameplan" gave you ~5 instances to give a certain part of your team a "bonus". Maybe you wanted a bonus to your QB on passing plays, or your HB on running plays, or your DBs versus passing plays.
In theory, they could take the idea behind the current Gameplan system and adapt some of what Head Coach 09 had ... "Conservative" for "Big Run" becomes 3X per game that you can "encourage the HB to hold onto the ball".
This could combine with TIM's ideas and what others have said on the last page ... that it should be a natural extension of attributes, as much as possible. But the "bonus" could be used to "emphasize" that natural tendency. Or maybe you tell some fumblitis-prone Freshman to hold onto the ball for dear life.
Yeah, I did the same early on.
As far as in-game adjustments, as has been discussed, tempo and strip ball are okay, but the others need to be rolled within player tendencies and coach philosophies, therefore additional/new adjustments need to be created. Remember, a gameplan is the focus of "your scheme vs your opponent's scheme" (playbook vs playbook). An in-game adjustment would be an adjustment to counter a weakness being exploited by the opponent, such as a pass rusher dominating your OT, so you adjust to have him double-teamed.
Completely agree on the "adjustments vs the "gameplan" I think EA does a poor job of naming things. From the get go I didn't like the Gameplan notation as it is truly in game adjustments, which I think is a great concept but done poorly. The problem is that it's to rigid and people just turn it on all the time instead of allowing to actually make adjustments based off of what is happening. This is why I don't think you can add it simply to an attribute as it doesn't allow for adjustments, even great players with high awareness sometimes need coaching.
I agree and disagree with you on the coaches wanting their players to always go for the pick. Yes, a coach would love to see an interception on every play, but not necessarily want a player to attempt an INT ever play. Awareness and skill ratings would definitely play a part here but adjustments could be used as well.
simply put- game plan isnt needed at all, its just an arcadey joke to begin with
And herein lies the problem with the current gameplan adjustments. When you set it to "aggressive" or "conservative" all of your players go for the INT, or conversely, go for the swat. It's universal, and has nothing to do with Xs and Os but boosting your players' ratings in that respect. That blurs the line between impact players and role players. Therefore, most of these adjustments should be replaced with more applicable ones to a gameplan.
This discussion has spawned an idea I could see the current adjustments being utilized, keeping with the suggestion they should be embedded into player tendencies. Perhaps there should be an additional coach philosophy slider (ranging from aggressive to conservative) that impacts off-season training. The attributes that are boosted with the current gameplan adjustments could be the ones most affected in the off-season according to your coach's aggressive/conservative slider.
Spoiler: show
So, hypothetically, if you recruit a player with a certain tendency, your coach's style could affect his training where he changes to balanced, and eventually the opposite tendency by the time he's a senior (the rate of change would depend on your coach's rating i.e. letter grade, and player's potential). Ex. run stopping DL progressing to a pass rusher fitting your coach's style.
The other adjustments (Tempo, Strip Ball, Zone Coverage, and Option Defense) could remain as is. However, some more offensive adjustments need to be added to balance it out. Suggestions?
Last edited by TIMB0B; 06-16-2012 at 01:37 PM.
If "Strip Ball" stays in, then "Big Run" (Protect the Ball) needs to stay to counter the adjustment.
OFFENSE
DEFENSE
Big Run CONSERVATIVE: PROTECT THE BALL
(+) Lower Fumble Chance
(-) Less Broken TacklesAGGRESSIVE: BREAK MORE TACKLES
(+) Higher Broken Tackle Chance
(-) Fumble the ball more oftenTempo CONSERVATIVE: CHEW CLOCK
(+) Accelerated Game Clock
(-) Less Time to Snap the BallAGGRESSIVE: HURRY-UP
(+) Get Set Quickly
(-) Fatigue Faster*Cadence CONSERVATIVE: SILENT COUNT
(+) No False Starts
(-) Lower Offensive Jump Snap ChanceAGGRESSIVE: HARD COUNT
(+) Higher Offensive Jump Snap Chance
(-) More False Starts*Offensive Line Splits CONSERVATIVE: NARROW SPLITS
(+) Prevent Inside Blitzes
(-) Smaller Running LanesAGGRESSIVE: WIDE SPLITS
(+) Bigger Running Lanes
(-) Susceptible to Inside Blitzes*Run Blocking Scheme CONSERVATIVE: MAN BLOCKING
(+) Block Assigned Man
(-) Minimal upfield progressionAGGRESSIVE: ZONE BLOCKING
(+) Base, Backer, to Safety Progression
(-) Backside Defenders unblocked*Passing Offense CONSERVATIVE: QUICK ROUTES
(+) Receivers Look for Pass Immediately
(-) Shorter Route DepthAGGRESSIVE: STRETCH THE FIELD
(+) Deeper Route Depth
(-) Receivers Look for Pass Later
* Denotes NEW Adjustment
Strip Ball CONSERVATIVE: WRAP UP
(+) Less Broken Tackles
(-) Lower Strip Ball ChanceAGGRESSIVE: STRIP BALL
(+) Higher Strip Ball Chance
(-) More Broken TacklesZone Defense CONSERVATIVE: LOOSE ZONES
(+) Zone Depth is Deeper
(-) Higher Chance to Get Beat ShortAGGRESSIVE: TIGHT ZONES
(+) Zone Depth is Shorter
(-) Higher Chance to Get Beat DeepOption Defense CONSERVATIVE: PLAY PITCH MAN
(+) Focus on Pitch Man
(-) Leave QuarterbackAGGRESSIVE: PLAY QB
(+) Focus on Quarterback
(-) Leave Pitch Man*Defensive Line Techniques CONSERVATIVE: 2-GAP
(+) Occupy Blockers to Free Up Linebackers
(-) Less Chance of Making a Play in the BackfieldAGGRESSIVE: 1-GAP
(+) Higher Chance of Backfield Disruption
(-) Susceptible to Screens and Playaction Pass*Linebackers CONSERVATIVE: READ PASS
(+) Initial Step toward Coverage Assignment
(-) Susceptible to Screens and DrawsAGGRESSIVE: GAP READ
(+) Initial Step toward Run Gap Assignment
(-) Susceptible to Playaction and Intermediate Pass*Safety Support CONSERVATIVE: ROLL COVERAGE
(+) Cloud Cover Keyed Receiver
(-) Susceptible to RunAGGRESSIVE: LOAD BOX
(+) Run Support
(-) Susceptible to Playaction and Deep Pass
Last edited by TIMB0B; 07-08-2012 at 07:40 PM.
Bookmarks