Defensively-I'd like to see more sophistication. Allow more options/flexibilty.
For DLine-whether to play in the gaps or not.
Running stunts if the sitution suggests a pass.
How about LB blitzes or even CB and S blitzes.
For stunts and blitzes w.r.t. OLine-G Instinct and Tech becomes much more important in being able to pick the stunt/blitz, and doing so without having to hold.
I would also say having the option of playing man vs zone.

Offensively-would say instead of conservative vs aggressive-actually decide if run to outside vs b/n the tackles. Have OL/RB speed be important in this. A line full of leadfoots is likely to not be effective in running to the outside.
Passing-able decide if deep, middle, short. Maybe even have it for individual players. The speed demon goes deep, mr elusive breaks it off short?

Depth-get rid of tired/getting tired option list nonsense. Go back to individual percentage.You obviously want to play studs longer/deeper than the more junior/less talented players. You should have that option instead of the general choice tied to all players as a group (i.e. OL, DL, LB etc).

Make formation pratices more relevant. Greater improvement than what happens now. And If you run an offense or defense without the practice time-then suffer the penalties that should go with it. I'm thinking of the Lombardo clip where he's talking about the Packer sweep-that they were going to practice it until they got it perfect.

if any of this was previously mentioned-oops.

Why aren't the football players required to maintain a minimum GPA like in the basketball game? I like that aspect of the game, since they are student-athletes, and believe it should be added to the college football game - that is more realistic after all. If this has already been discussed or if I missed that part and it is already included, I apologize.

This may have been addressed, so forgive me for not going through all 25 pages thus far.  Would it be possible to have an "Active/Inactive" option for each player on the Depth chart?  For instance, I may not want a specific RB playing against a specific opponent but I don't want to shift my entire roster assignment for the position for just one game... or, let's say my starting DE gets hurt, I may not want him in the starting lineup as soon as he's healthy enough to play.  I like to wait an extra day to get him more healthy.  In order to do this, I have to reset my entire depth chart at that position and not have him listed in the roster assignments... then when he's at the health level I like, I have to reset the position.  With an "Active/Inactive" option, it would just be a simple click.

Also, would it be possible to include an option to get scrubs into the game in a blowout?  A set point value/timeline, whether you're winning or losing by that amount with a specific time remaining would allow for a little better player development because of the PT and just be a little more realistic in general.  If I'm up or down 40-7 at the start of the 4th quarter, I don't really want my starting QB playing out the game and getting injured and out for 3 days in a blowout...  And yes, I realize in this game, a 40-7 lead going into the 4th quarter isn't necessarily SAFE!  lol

I'm feel pretty certain that an option to set up a Receiving TE or Blocking TE has been discussed, so +1 to that.

Lastly, instead of the current Defensive settings, could something be implemented more along the lines of Man/Zone coverage, Press, Balance or Prevent coverage, Blitz/No-Blitz...  I realize there are only so many options that can be put in, but as it is right now, many players are setting their Dime and Nickel packages to Run (even though they know Pass is coming) to pull the D up closer to the line of scrimmage to defend against the short  and intermediate passes.  This is just how the game is and it kinda takes the challenge out of gameplanning when you know that you're probably not really going to get burned any worse by setting that D for Run in a passing situation.  With more specific coverage options, the simulation could be made more realistic, in that if you call Nickle Run Conservative and your opponent is set at Shotgun, Always Pass, Aggressive, you're likely to get toasted.  It would make gameplanning far more realistic and important.

And like others have said, if this has already been addressed, please forgive the waste of time.

I like the active inactive click. Would let us have options of getting subs in the game during blowouts at half time without reseting everything. (If I would only be able to REMEMBER to switch it back!)

Posted by champ83 on 1/27/2012 11:23:00 AM (view original):
I like the concept of being a passing team and switch to run if pass isn't working (i.e. defense is playing Pass defense), and vice versa.

I would like to see consideration of additional changes as follows:

1. set defense coverage in Man-to-man (either aggressive press coverage, or conservative off line of scrimmae; CBs are key defenders), or zone coverage (CBs, S, LBs all factor in coverage)

2. set defense blitz level/type (basic blitz = 1 blitzer, multiple blitz = 2 blitzers, max blitz = 3 blitzers, also have a zone blitz)

2a. set offensive blitz protection to either basic (no extra protection), moderate (TE/RB chip blocks, they go out for pass if not a heavy blitz), or max protection (TE/RB stay in to block and don't go out for pass)

3. set defense line style to 1-gap (Defense needs better DL than LBs... DTs try to make plays, LBs have to fend of blocks) or 2-gap (Defense needs better LBs than DL... DTs occupy OL and don't make plays but LBs have free run and make the plays), you can recruit DL/LB to fit your style

4. set O-line blocking to Zone blocking (OL requires BLK, GI, and Tech) or Man-to-man blocking (OL require BLK and Str), you can recruit OL to fit your style

5. Offense can call individual plays, by setting a percentage of times they can each be used.  Maybe have an inventory of 10 to 15 basic offensive plays. (For example, if there were 10 plays, a SIM team might set all of them to 10% each and run them equally).  Called pass plays would determine the primary receiver, if he is covered and QB decides not to throw, it's as if current system is in place and QB makes another pass or scramble. Play-by-play results would need to identify play that was called (ex: "QB incomplete pass to WR on skinny post", "RB rushes for 4 yards on draw"), so defense could scout as if watching the plays on film.

Example of play inventory would be:
Passes
RB screen (more effective if defense is rushing the passer),
Bubble screen to WR (more effective when the defense playing off line of scrimmage or CB is poor tackler),
Crossing pattern (more effective when DB/LB doesn't have GI to pick up in zone or DB doesn't have Speed to follow WR in man-to-man),
Deep vertical "go" routes (more effective when WR has speed and/or DB doesn't),
Stop-and-go, Sluggos/slant-and-go, Out-and-up (WR needs Tech and Speed),
Out/sideline patterns,can be deep or short (WR needs Tech to get feet in bounds, these also stop clock in hurry-up mode),
Post/skinny post patterns (up to Safety to make play on WR),
Curl routes/come-back/slant routes for possession receivers with little Speed/Elus but good hands,
Runs
Draw to RB (more effective if defense is rushing the passer),
Zone read runs (either QB/RB carries, depending if Aggr run defense and DE charges then QB keeps, if Consv defense and thus DE slow plays then the QB hands off to RB),
Basic RB inside runs (DTs and MLB defend) and outside runs (DE and OLB defend).
QB draw (effective with running QB and/or blitzing defense)
QB roll-outs (pass or run depending on GI and play available)

I think this is my favorite ideas post - great stuff champ83.

As for #3) isn't the 4-3 supposed to be a 1-gap and the 3-4 supposed to be a 2-gap???  And if that is the case, it would sure be nice if the game engine took into account the different abilities required of the D-line and linebackers in both cases.  Tailoring your O-line to either zone-blockers or man-blockers would also give an alternative to everyone gunning for just BLK-STR O-linemen.  Athletic linemen with GI and TQ who had lower strength would then be sought after as well. 

A big problem with right now is that basically everyone is forced to recruit for the same strong cores in all the positions.  It would make it a lot more interesting if the Cores at each position was more dependent on your style of offense and defense rather than just being generic as they are now.

For example, a WR out of WB or ND-Box sets (think Georgia Tech) wouldn't need great GI or TQ or even Elusiveness to a great degree but would certainly need Speed, Hands, Strength and blocking ability.  A shotgun system would require WR's with a lot more GI and TQ and ELU, but maybe wouldn't ALL need as much speed or strength or any blocking to speak of.

THis would make recruiting way more interesting without you having to change the recruiting programming at all.

Posted by norbert on 1/25/2012 11:14:00 AM (view original):
I won't be working on the update quite yet, but I wanted to get the discussion started.  We've basically been cleared for a few months of development for GD and it is going to focus on the Simulation Engine and Game Plans.  For the engine, I'd like to concentrate on adding more cause and effect as well as adding to the output of the game.  For game plans, I'd like to add more control on setting how your team plays and remove as much of the random play selection as possible, even if it means rebuilding how we set game plans altogether.

When it gets closer to the time when I can work on these things, I'll post with more info.  I'd really like to hear more ideas on game plans.  I know #1 add passing distribution, #2 add passing distribution, so let's start on #3 on down.  There are a couple things I'd like to shoot for with game plans.  They shouldn't require a billion options to set, and there should be simple settings that everyone can set quickly and advanced settings that people can tweak a little more only if they choose.

One avenue of game plan setting on offense I've been throwing around is a way to focus on plays and setting up options on each play and the conditions in which they are used, rather than looking at each situation (down and distance) and setting random formation and style selections.  How this would work without violating the "don't set a billion options" rules, I don't know.  Which is why I'm tossing the discussion out here.

I also think we can separate how you play the game from the plays you use.  For instance, I'd like to be able to set something that says I want to be a passing team, or a rushing team, or open the game with passing and then work on rushing when passing starts being less successful.  I think this would allow the coaches to really set up passing or rushing playbooks without hoping it just randomly comes out that way.

So please feel free to express any ideas you have or provide any concerns you have about setting up your game plans.  Don't try to confine ideas to the current settings.  At this point, work will probably begin around March with a few months of development and I'm planning on having around a month of beta testing on the update.

I realize this could lead to some big posts, so please try to keep them on topic.

I posted this in response to the 4/18 update and I guess I posted it in the wrong spot. I just figured because we were discussing updates, I took it as in general, not specific feedback to the 4/18 one, so I guess I got no response over there from management. I know the other thread was looking for feedback on the 4/18 update, but seeing we were discussing updates I figured I could post a suggestion or 2 about the one later this year and at least get some feedback on it. Well I got some good feedback from other users (which I'll post below), but nothing from management, so here goes:

Posted by courtmagic on 4/16/2012 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Would it be possible to add a couple of minor updates. I'm an "old" veteran at Hoops Dynasty (only my 5th season here) and two things that jump out at me are

1. on the recruting tab, sub tab "summary" you can click the little arrow and add recruits to the compare list, but unlike Hoops where you can just hit the "delete all" button, you have to delete each one individually. I like having both options where if you want to stay in the same catergory you can delete one or 2, but if you want to change catergories (say from RB to WR) you have to delete them all one at a time and with all the players on your roster (50 compared to 12) it gets a little time consuming and tedious when you have to fill so many roster slots and positions. It would be nice if you could add that botton.

2. over in Hoops again, you are able to post messages on other players/coaches/conferences "coaches corner" and here we are not able to. Sometimes it's easier and quicker to send a guy a message by being able to put it on his coaches corner instead of sending him a site mail with the hopes that he remembers to check it. Some guys go 2/3 or 6/7 days without checking the sitemail, but everybody sees the coaches corner every day. Yes I can post on my own coaches corner, but it would be nice to post on the other conferences when you have buddies or rivals from those other conferences. Sometims it's important stuff, sometimes it's just small talk, and others it's smack talk, but it would be a nice addition as well.

Nice simple changes courtmagic. And these are options I appreciate in Hoops Dynasty that I've always missed having here in GD. And they should likely be very simple additions.

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=41&TopicID=454097&ThreadID=9837366#l_9837366 

Not going to happen.

+1 to fermor, and I don't think I want it to happen anyhow.

Posted by fermor332002 on 5/9/2012 7:43:00 PM (view original):
Not going to happen.

+1

I would not even want to think how hard it would be to allow for more and less teams in the conferences than 12.

I guess they could change the conferences around to get the right 12 in some of the conferences, but trying to allow for 14 or 16 team conferences would require a total scheduling rewrite.

The success rate of onside kicks in REAL football in the 4th quarter is 20% unlike sim which is more like 60%. PLEASE PLEASE fix this. Too many times I have seen a weaker team win because of this

2 things I would like to see in update:
1-Lower the randomness factor in wins by about 20 percent
2- Make running more important than it currently is.  Right now you can run a terrific All Passing offense. But if you even mix in 50 percent running it is very hard to run an NC contending offense.

Posted by mojolad on 5/16/2012 9:47:00 AM (view original):
2 things I would like to see in update:
1-Lower the randomness factor in wins by about 20 percent
2- Make running more important than it currently is.  Right now you can run a terrific All Passing offense. But if you even mix in 50 percent running it is very hard to run an NC contending offense.

#2 not true - I won a D1AA NC with an all WB offense. Averaged near 300 yds a game running.

Posted by katzphang88 on 5/16/2012 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mojolad on 5/16/2012 9:47:00 AM (view original):
2 things I would like to see in update:
1-Lower the randomness factor in wins by about 20 percent
2- Make running more important than it currently is.  Right now you can run a terrific All Passing offense. But if you even mix in 50 percent running it is very hard to run an NC contending offense.

#2 not true - I won a D1AA NC with an all WB offense. Averaged near 300 yds a game running.

Agreed.  #2 is not correct.  I've won my NCs with an average mix of 55 run to 45 pass.