12/3/2013 6:51 AM
Am starting to get really annoyed with RBs running around like they are all Adrian Peterson and Receiving like Calvin Johnson, something needs to be done to address this problem otherwise this game is just a lottery.
12/3/2013 9:38 AM
Human coaches can easily stop the RB catches. Most coaches rack up big RB catches vs SIMs because we know their defense.  MY RBs avg yard/rush don't seem to be out of whack. Both my teams are long time SIM coached rebuilds, so maybe after a few human recruiting seasons I will see these Adrian Peterson-like rushing numbers.  Don't forget, rushing total yards are high at the moment because we see more offensive plays per game than in real life.  Yards/rush don't seem too out of the norm.
12/3/2013 9:53 AM
I think the hands attribute has too little to do with running back catches at the moment.  Any running back can rack up 10 catches a game regardless of how low their hands rating is.  Obviously running back catches is a symptom of a larger issue, but I think the disregard of the hands rating is also part of the problem.  If hands is absolutely imperative for a reciever to catch a ball, why does it make no difference for a back? 

12/3/2013 10:42 AM
I agree 100%. I would like to see The hands attribute become more of a factor in the running back pass catches. At the moment, hands appeared to have little importance.

I may be in the minority, but I feel running back receptions are more a function of formation and playbooks and not a bug in the system. The problem lies in the fact that we are seeing significantly more offense of plays per game than in real life and that the formation / playbook issue Will always be present when a SIM coached team is on defense.
12/3/2013 10:51 AM
Seems to me the scoring in exb games are way too much but you get to regualr season and its back to normal
12/4/2013 9:01 AM
Posted by meece on 12/3/2013 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Seems to me the scoring in exb games are way too much but you get to regualr season and its back to normal
I think there might be something to this....both of my teams saw bigger numbers in the pre-season than in the regular season.  It does not make a bit of sense...but could be the "throttle" switch is not turned on for exhibition games.
12/4/2013 9:02 PM (edited)
chalvorson, I agree completely. If a coach wants his RBs to catch fewer passes, it is simply a matter of reducing/eliminating their percentage in FORMs, or adjusting play call PASS Routes in the Playbook.

This won't be popular, and will probably cause some backlash, but IMHO I think most coaches that complain about 3.0 could find a workaround for nearly all problems with a little more effort. Other than the VERY NOTICEABLE problems in PBP, playing time/subs, and a few other bugs which are listed in the forums ad nauseum, this engine IS functioning and WILL get better with some more POSITIVE input from coaches AND more ATTENTION given to those coaches by the Developers.

I think all the new options for setting variables offer endless possibilities for customizing any possible style of OFF, and with the use of custom positional roles and finely adjusted ratios, we should be able to have our DEF do our bidding much more accurately than any real human coach can ever expect. But it will take work!!
I think that some coaches that have had good/great success in the past doing things a certain way may need to adjust or change the way they do things now. Some skill sets for players will need to be tweaked, aggresiveness settings may not necessarily produce the same results they used to, MAYBE coaches will have to adjust their philosophy with the times or risk losing touch with the modern players & the way the game is played today. Back in my high school days,  full contact two-a-days in the hot  summer sun with only a garden hose to drink out of was the norm. Now that would probalby be considered child abuse or bullying and even the millionaires in the NFL  aren't willing to work that hard for success. Yet successful coaches still find a way to be relevant while those that aren't able to change go the way of the single-wing.  

Full disclosure, I have been playing this game for about 9 months now,  and have found moderate success with all of my teams-conf champs, but still can't make it past regional finals of playoffs, dammit!! I did play all 8 (I think there were 8) seasons of the BETA, again with moderate success. I wish I had more time to spend on my teams to have everything perform exactly the way I envision, but like most of you (i assume), the real world still takes priority over my false dreams of grandeur, so I take what enjoyment I can from the game and hope to improve as the seasons go by. Some day I hope to have that SHINY IMAGINARY TROPHY on my imaginary mantle too!!

My point being, other than needing MORE COMMUNICATION PLEASE to weed out the bugs, this game is still alot of fun for most of us. Let's all work to make it better in a positive manner and together we will make it even better than the "Good Old Days" of GD 1.0 or 2.0.

OK vets, you may now destroy me on & off the field.  It will probably go something like this:                                   
But I will be back to knock heads with you again!!

NOW STRAP THOSE CHINSTRAPS UP MEN! IT'S TIME TO SEE WHO HAS THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO SEE THIS GAME THROUGH!! WHO'S COMING WITH ME??  
12/4/2013 10:50 PM
dessasdad well said I agree. I like the new engine. Also can we please stop talking about it needing to be in beta. Its what we got so quit beating that dead horse. Id like to see people spending their time trying to improve the game instead of constantly complaining about it.
12/4/2013 11:36 PM
I think complaining is part of trying to improve the game!  Constructive criticism is just feedback. 

Outside of coaches saying "I am quitting" and "3.0 is garbage", most complaints are focused on the game itself and what we as coaches see as problematic.  In other words, fixing some of those problems would make a better game!   
12/5/2013 4:45 AM
My only complaint is pretty simple .....we were promised V3.0 would have the better team win a majority of the time, which it would be okay to lose once in awhile to an inferior team. In fact I liked 3.0 up until I lost to a Sim AI team that was 82 count them 82 points OVERALL less than me in the playoffs.....That's like the equivalent of Alabama losing to Utah State it would never happen no MATTER what. They could put their third stringers in and beat Utah State any day that's the problem with this version and some how by the looks of who has won championships it's not very impressive some deserving coaches/ teams but overall disappointing. If I have a superior team position for position I should dominate position for position unless I'm out game planned which isn't the case because Sim AI teams use all the DEFAULTS that's how you know something is broken when you game plan how you had all season against sims and some how lose with a FAR SUPERIOR team.
12/5/2013 7:59 AM
jfootball, what do you mean by "82 overall less"? What metric are you referring to? 

I'm not disagreeing with your point, however, I believe that game planning should be able to overcome a certain amount of talent gap. I can't quantify what the spread game planning should overcome.  Obviously, if a less talented team correctly game plans to stop a more talented team, the more talented team can also game plan to help counter the less talented teams efforts.  As an example, if a more talented teams runs inside on 1st down every time, a less talented team could use a stout run defense with all LBs set to LINE and blitz one of their DB. That would put 8 defenders (9 defenders using 4-4 defense) in the box to help stop the run.  Next, the more talented team could game plan to be less obvious on 1st down.

The obvious conclusion to this line of thinking is that on offense a more talented team should run a balanced offense as not be predictable enough for a less talented team to successfully game plan against them.

The less talented team would have to game plan their offense to focus on a potential defensive weakness, if one exists, of the more talented team.

I wish we had way within WIS to see how our team matches up versus a given opponent.  That way we could quickly and easily see the opponent's relative weakness and strengths which we could game plan for.  The opponent would also see this and could take counter measures...nirvana!!

12/6/2013 11:11 PM

Dess...I have to disagree with you on RB catches being the result of how often they are targeted in our formations screens.  I have a RB at D-III Rowan who is far and away my leading receiver.  He is the #1 priority only when I throw out of the wishbone - which is almost never, and it is a formation I almost never run.  I only use it in short yardage, and I only throw out of it about 10% of the time.  So this guy is not racking up big receiving numbers in the wishbone.  In the other formations, he is never higher than the #3 target, and usually he is #4...behind both WR and the TE, or the 3 WR when I run trips.  I'm hardly targeting the guy at all, but ye's leading the team in receptions by a comfortable margin.  He has 55 catches, TE has 48, both starting WR are in the 30's.

So, either my QB is so good at going through his reads AND the defense is so good in coverage, that my QB is finding his #4 read all the time; or my QB is so bad that he doesn't go through his reads at all and simply dumps the ball to the RB at the first sign of trouble. 
 

12/7/2013 12:57 AM
QB talent must be some sort of factor....its a good question to ask oriole

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.