I think what the game needs most is control over individual matchups.  When creating a gameplan, a coach should be able to identify his and the opponents teams' strengths and weaknesses and know how to protect/exploit them.  I don't have any great ideas on how to achieve this, but I think it's the direction the game needs to go.

Norbert,

I realize a lot of us (myself included) are asking for pie in the sky stuff.  It is a wish list, why wish small. 

 

Thank you for listening, communicating and doing what you can, we really do appreciate it.

 

 

A few things that have been discussed -

- Allow copying of game plans from down to down - i.e., I want my 2 minute drill to have the same setup regardless of down. Once I set first down, let me copy that to 2nd/3rd/4th downs
- Allow universal aggressiveness setting to be applied - drop down box that will autofill to all distances / situations in that down
- Situational substitutions for every position except DL/OL/QB (don't like the idea of having a dumpy QB to hand off only in wishbone vs another QB for passing situations)
- Wildcat formation
- Own red zone control on offense
- Blitz type - inside vs. outside, LB vs DB
- Matchup control - if the other team's best receiver is a tight end, I want the ability to assign my #1 CB to him whenever the TE is on the field

Posted by ulrich on 1/26/2012 11:33:00 AM (view original):
Norbert,

I realize a lot of us (myself included) are asking for pie in the sky stuff.  It is a wish list, why wish small. 

 

Thank you for listening, communicating and doing what you can, we really do appreciate it.

 

 

If there is any time to ask for "pie in the sky", it's now.  If it happens that 80% of the ideas get thrown out, we'd still be 20% better off.

Posted by glaity on 1/25/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):
separate offensive and defensive gameplans -- rather than 1 integrated gameplan

+1

I have a suggestion regarding recruiting and while it will not be addressed in this particular update, it may be something to consider down the road.  On the summary recruit page, would it be possible to have something that shows pending recruiting actions for the players?  Personally, I think it would be nice to know who I am waiting to hear from rather than clicking on the guy and checking the history.  When you are contacting a large number of guys its easy to forget....for me anyway.  Additionally, how about a mass recruit option?

Thanks for the open lines of communication.

I've suggested this before, but I'll toss it out again.  I'd like to see a complete overhaul of game plans so that teams could select from a number of plays to create their team's playbook.  For example, there might be two dozen different passing plays out of trips or shotgun, using various routes being run, with a primary, secondary, and checkdown receivers specified, and then a smaller number of running plays out of those same formations.  Conversely, the "running" formations would feature more running plays and less passing plays, the balanced formations would feature a rough balance between the two.   On defense, you'd have a variety of coverages, blitzes, and formations from which to pick.   From all these plays, you would build your customized playbook for your team.  For people that don't want to go into the work of customizing their playbooks, there would be a few pre-designed ones in place to use. 

In game planning, you would then select, for down and distance (short, medium, long, very long) a number of plays that you could prioritize or weigh so that you run some plays more often if you want, or spread them out, or however you choose to manage your team's play selections. 

Posted by bhazlewood on 1/26/2012 5:17:00 PM (view original):
I've suggested this before, but I'll toss it out again.  I'd like to see a complete overhaul of game plans so that teams could select from a number of plays to create their team's playbook.  For example, there might be two dozen different passing plays out of trips or shotgun, using various routes being run, with a primary, secondary, and checkdown receivers specified, and then a smaller number of running plays out of those same formations.  Conversely, the "running" formations would feature more running plays and less passing plays, the balanced formations would feature a rough balance between the two.   On defense, you'd have a variety of coverages, blitzes, and formations from which to pick.   From all these plays, you would build your customized playbook for your team.  For people that don't want to go into the work of customizing their playbooks, there would be a few pre-designed ones in place to use. 

In game planning, you would then select, for down and distance (short, medium, long, very long) a number of plays that you could prioritize or weigh so that you run some plays more often if you want, or spread them out, or however you choose to manage your team's play selections. 

+1

Posted by andrew5975 on 1/25/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):
I like the "basic settings" and "advanced settings" idea for gameplanning. And with the advanced settings, the more control the better. Possibly the ability to substitute in a "running QB" for certain situations. Also control over the pace of our offense with no huddle/milk the clock type options.

I would like to +1 the offensive pace option.  It drives me crazy when I'm running my "come-from-behind" offense with a minute or so left, I get a first down, and then 30 seconds run off the clock before my next play.  Having a "no-huddle" setting where plays are run more quickly, but substitutions can't be made (which would mean no changing formations, unless you don't mind that someone will be playing out of position), plays are chosen from a more limited selection, and players on both sides of the ball tire much quicker, would be awesome!  I think everyone would enjoy using it at least in late-game two-minute-drill situations, and then some of us (say Oregon fans like me) would probably want to experiment with running it as a default offense as well (if designed well, it would probably be an epic failure unless you trained stamina really well... but if you emphasized conditioning and had a major stamina edge over opposing teams it would be a great option to wear them down with).

Allow players to be placed out of position on the depth chart.  I hate that I can ONLY fill my WR depth chart slots with guys designated as WRs.  What happens if a few guys get hurt, I end up with only 3 healthy WRs on my roster, and I want to run the shotgun?  A player from another position will take that spot, but I currently have no ability at all to control who it will be.  Why can't I put a TE or RB there, and have that control?  The ability to place someone out of position on the depth chart could (and probably should) be limited to legal position changes, but I would like the ability.  And if this option was combined with the options of formation-specific subs, or situational substitution packages, it would also allow things like the wildcat (just put a RB at QB), or a jumbo package where you put a sixth OL at TE on a short-yardage running play, and such.

Norbert, thanks for opening the discussion. A lot of great ideas here.

One simple(?) request I'll put out there is to have the Slot WR position be considered a starting position when your base formation is Shotgun. Maybe that's already on the list, but I thought I'd mention it.

As another feature, I could see some use for enabling us to assign a player to the depth chart  at more than one position as long as he isn't already a starter at another position. For example, I might have a DL that I'd like to have 3rd on the depth chart for DT, but 4th on the depth chart for DE. Or maybe i have a RB that sits at 2nd on the RB depth chart, but i'd also like to place him at 6th on the WR depth cart.

An extension of the idea might be to allow a DB (starter or not) to be set on the WR depth chart, say, as an emergency back-up at 8th or 9th, and vice versa.

I know a there have been other ideas suggested here for depth charts, so maybe this one has already been mentioned and I didn't catch it. If so, consider this a +1. (NOTE: Just saw bobjoejim's post. Looks like he was posting while i was writing. So, yeah, +1 and a little more.)

Posted by fermor332002 on 1/26/2012 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhazlewood on 1/26/2012 5:17:00 PM (view original):
I've suggested this before, but I'll toss it out again.  I'd like to see a complete overhaul of game plans so that teams could select from a number of plays to create their team's playbook.  For example, there might be two dozen different passing plays out of trips or shotgun, using various routes being run, with a primary, secondary, and checkdown receivers specified, and then a smaller number of running plays out of those same formations.  Conversely, the "running" formations would feature more running plays and less passing plays, the balanced formations would feature a rough balance between the two.   On defense, you'd have a variety of coverages, blitzes, and formations from which to pick.   From all these plays, you would build your customized playbook for your team.  For people that don't want to go into the work of customizing their playbooks, there would be a few pre-designed ones in place to use. 

In game planning, you would then select, for down and distance (short, medium, long, very long) a number of plays that you could prioritize or weigh so that you run some plays more often if you want, or spread them out, or however you choose to manage your team's play selections. 

+1

+1
+1
+1
+1

I would like to see the coaches be able to form a personality for their teams. Each specific personality would come with special formation IQ advancment for associated formations, specialist positions provided in depth charts, special plays for the game plan and perhaps even helpful hints from assistant coaches on what attributes we should be looking for in our recruits. This would be a global organization of the game with all of the suggested mechanical changes integrated as Norbert is able. The number of team personality choices would be expandable as WIS and Norbert have time and could include many new game and formation ideas.

I bring this up because, currently, Washington State University is going bonkers over the prospect of Mike Leach and his take no prisoners passing offense beginning next season. This type of "personality" could be offensive or defensive, passing or running and since each would be somewhat self contained. Depending on the complexity, it may be something that Norbert can figure out could be set-up and developed by each coach for their team.

From a mechanical aspect of the new GD III. If formation IQ in some future mutant form is incorporated into a teams game sim, please make it more expansive. I have a RS RB, 4.0 gpa, 90+WE who just broke 70 formation IQ. If the range of players is mostly in the 40 - 60 range it doesn't make much sense to keep it. Make the freshmen recruit high in one formation (30-40 range) and low in others and allow them to grow into the 90 - 100 range by the end of their Jr years (given say a 3.0 GPA and 50 WE). Make the observable play of both high and low players significantly good or bad to make this item relevant - or leave it behind at the update.

Posted by sqbj99 on 1/25/2012 3:40:00 PM (view original):
separate practice settings for different individual positions. especially for defensive positions

I'll take that one step further. Seperate practice settings for each player.

I know that goes against the whole "not a billion options" theory. However, it is indeed how real life works. For example. if you have one DL that is great at tackling but weak, you should be able to let him practice less at TKL and more on STR. While your really strong DL that is a poor tackler could practice less at STR and more on TKL. In real life, the coaches are gonna send the weak guy to the gym for more lifting, while the poor tackler is gonna be out on the field hitting the dummies. You shouldn't have to set everyone on the same practice settings.

Posted by gr8flly on 1/26/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I have a suggestion regarding recruiting and while it will not be addressed in this particular update, it may be something to consider down the road.  On the summary recruit page, would it be possible to have something that shows pending recruiting actions for the players?  Personally, I think it would be nice to know who I am waiting to hear from rather than clicking on the guy and checking the history.  When you are contacting a large number of guys its easy to forget....for me anyway.  Additionally, how about a mass recruit option?

Thanks for the open lines of communication.

You MUST give us the ability to cancel a recruiting action before the next cycle hits. I can't tell you the number of times I have lost recruits because I accidentally hit the wrong button and wasted a couple thousand dollars on the wrong player and ran out of money at the end. After all, the money for a Campus Visit isn't spent til you take the trip -- not when you tell the coach to head to the airport...

How about fixing the play by play output to show scores on the line where they occur, instead of on the following line. - Simple compared to the rest of these ideas.
A visible indication on the Recruiting screen to help you see who has pending actions would save me a ton of clicks.