3/17/2013 1:59 AM (edited)
Pick the  answer that best fits you?

A




Votes: 49
(Last vote received: 5/30/2013 9:58 AM)
3/17/2013 2:59 AM
None of the above. What about "I really like Version 3 but since we're less than 1/2 way through Beta realize it's going to get much better by the time we're finished with it"
3/17/2013 9:35 AM
Some hope that its going to get better, however I dont think that it will, but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt if someone can answer  the question that nobody has answered.  How is it going to be fair  for some coaches to play basic while others are playing Advanced        For those that want all the control and have the time the advanced is great.  Does the coach playing basic have a chance to beat coaches that are playing acvanced.  Thats the million dollar question for me.
3/17/2013 9:36 AM
Posted by coach_deen on 3/17/2013 2:59:00 AM (view original):
None of the above. What about "I really like Version 3 but since we're less than 1/2 way through Beta realize it's going to get much better by the time we're finished with it"
+1
Yes, None of the above would be my choice as well.  There are still a lot of holes to be fixed but I believe the end result may be enough to bring me back into the fold.  I realize tweeks are still being made, but here are my current observations:
1.  Special teams returns need to be turned down.  I average at least one special teams return in every actual game it seems, and usually at least 2 returns (Kick and Punt) in test games. 

2.  Very Short passing is too effective and Medium passing is not effective enough.  Long and Deep passes are still intercepted at too high of a rate.

3.  Running with QBs and WRs is too effective.  Running with RBs not effective enough (at least not for my team).  While I realize it may just be my team and some may be having big numbers from their RBs, I can't get any of mine going in any formation vs. any formation.  My QBs, however, have ran for nearly 1200 yards and thrown for over 3100 with 79% completion so far.  Only 23 of my QBs runs have been scrambles, so the majority of those rushing yards are on designated runs.  So, 58% passing, 42% running.  My RBs, however, just can't seem to get going in any formation against any formation.  I've tried them all, inside running, outside running, vs. Running D, vs. Passing D...  every combination in every formation...  just can't get them going.

4.  On the plus side, gameplanning seems to make more of a difference, though being able to see your opponents gameplans, and them able to see yours, certainly play into it.  It's  been very difficult to gameplan for my CC game, as I can actually see my opponent gameplanning at the same time making adjustments to his D as soon as I do something on O, and vice versa...  kinda funny last night as we were both countering each other for over two hours...  I'd make an ajustment and run some test games and find that he'd made adjustments and was also running test games...  Very funny...   I finally waited until a half hour before gametime to put in my final gameplan...  he must've waited until even closer to gametime, because he went in a different direction.

5.  Plugging in specific OL positions and DL/LB/DB/S positions seems to make a difference.  Early in the season, during the exhibition season, I went with generic OL, DL, LB and DB settings.  When non-con games started, I plugged in guys specifically where I wanted them (Tackles, Guards, Center, etc...)  Production on both sides of the ball seemed to go up significantly and when I use formations that don't have specific personnel setups, production doesn't seem as strong.

6.  Not sure about blitz #'s yet.  I'm thinking they may have turned these down a bit, as early on, I was getting around 10 a game and was only blitzing 10% across the board.  Now, with the same % setting, I'm getting about 3 per game, which seems pretty normal, HOWEVER, when I run test games now with 100% blitz across the board, I only seem to get about 5 or 6 per game, which doesn't seem like enough with blitzing set at 100%.

Overall, I'd have to say I'm liking what I'm seeing... or, at least the direction I see it taking.  If they can get some of the kinks worked out, I think we'll have a game to be proud of, but it's obviously not there yet.  Some of the above stuff may just be specific to my team of course, and there are still some of the little issues like fumbles recovered by the offense going back to the line of scrimmage, etc... that need to be worked out, but I think we're headed in the right direction overall.


3/17/2013 9:54 AM
Personally, I don't really see the basic vs. advanced as that big of an advantage.  It's really only a depth chart/formation thing as far as I can see.  And if someone wants to use specific formations with set depth charts, they're most likely going to be doing something very specific.  If it's short yardage, they'll either go with a power back or a possession back.  All you have to do is gameplan for the situation, whether you're running basic or advanced.  It would be no better than a 50/50 proposition with version 2.0, so even if you go 50/50 run/pass, you'll probably get the same result as 2.0 in the worst case scenario.  Even if everything were on absolutely even ground (all advanced or all basic), there's still the anatomy of the play that will happen, blocking, execution, etc.  Just because both are playing basic settings doesn't guarantee you success on any given play.  I don't know... I just don't really see it as all that big of a deal, and the bottom line is that most of the complaining about the past versions of this game is that there wasn't enough control.  Now that we have it, are people really going to be complaining about that too?  Oh, silly me... of course they are.
3/17/2013 10:10 AM
I answered I really miss 1.0.


I've threatened to quit this game for the last 2 years and in another 3 weeks that will be the case. My last team is now on auto and I have closed that account. This new version is a big disappointment to me. Its a whole lot of bells and whistles with the same general random results as 2.0. 

I'll continue for awhile to play a game that rewards the effort you put in w/o taking hours a day to do so. HBD.

The new GD is once again a bust.

3/17/2013 11:39 AM
I havent been playing advanced so I could care less about it myself.  Thank you Mannowar for finally answering that question.
3/17/2013 11:40 AM
"if someone can answer  the question that nobody has answered.  How is it going to be fair  for some coaches to play basic while others are playing Advanced"

Or you could ask the exact same question in another way: Is it fair that the people that put more time and effort into the game have a better chance of winning? Same question, just a little more to the point and easier to answer. Yes, it's not only fair but the ONLY fair way! I don't mean to be hard, but for months coaches have been complaining about the game being "dummied down", "too random", etc., etc. And how many times have we all heard the complaint "I haven't done anything to my team and it makes no difference". Now that coaches have the choice to really get into game planning where it truly makes a difference people are complaining that there is too much game planning involved and they don't have time to game plan!
3/17/2013 11:41 AM
Posted by mannowar on 3/17/2013 9:54:00 AM (view original):
Personally, I don't really see the basic vs. advanced as that big of an advantage.  It's really only a depth chart/formation thing as far as I can see.  And if someone wants to use specific formations with set depth charts, they're most likely going to be doing something very specific.  If it's short yardage, they'll either go with a power back or a possession back.  All you have to do is gameplan for the situation, whether you're running basic or advanced.  It would be no better than a 50/50 proposition with version 2.0, so even if you go 50/50 run/pass, you'll probably get the same result as 2.0 in the worst case scenario.  Even if everything were on absolutely even ground (all advanced or all basic), there's still the anatomy of the play that will happen, blocking, execution, etc.  Just because both are playing basic settings doesn't guarantee you success on any given play.  I don't know... I just don't really see it as all that big of a deal, and the bottom line is that most of the complaining about the past versions of this game is that there wasn't enough control.  Now that we have it, are people really going to be complaining about that too?  Oh, silly me... of course they are.
Then you are missing out on taking advantage of opponents weeknesses. If u set things up right and have a couple good players at one position then you can really pick on certain plYers on the defense. You caanot do this in the basic packages.Pp.
3/17/2013 12:49 PM
Posted by coach_deen on 3/17/2013 2:59:00 AM (view original):
None of the above. What about "I really like Version 3 but since we're less than 1/2 way through Beta realize it's going to get much better by the time we're finished with it"
+1
3/17/2013 4:54 PM
Agree with none of the above.  3 seems like it is going to be everything we asked for after a few tweaks, and the finished product should be "the bomb and can't get better"
3/17/2013 5:15 PM
Agree with none of the above. Thought 1.0 was good and 2.0 sucked [stopped playing] With adjustments 3.0 could be very good and I would pay for the product again.
3/17/2013 6:23 PM
Posted by mannowar on 3/17/2013 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 3/17/2013 2:59:00 AM (view original):
None of the above. What about "I really like Version 3 but since we're less than 1/2 way through Beta realize it's going to get much better by the time we're finished with it"
+1
Yes, None of the above would be my choice as well.  There are still a lot of holes to be fixed but I believe the end result may be enough to bring me back into the fold.  I realize tweeks are still being made, but here are my current observations:
1.  Special teams returns need to be turned down.  I average at least one special teams return in every actual game it seems, and usually at least 2 returns (Kick and Punt) in test games. 

2.  Very Short passing is too effective and Medium passing is not effective enough.  Long and Deep passes are still intercepted at too high of a rate.

3.  Running with QBs and WRs is too effective.  Running with RBs not effective enough (at least not for my team).  While I realize it may just be my team and some may be having big numbers from their RBs, I can't get any of mine going in any formation vs. any formation.  My QBs, however, have ran for nearly 1200 yards and thrown for over 3100 with 79% completion so far.  Only 23 of my QBs runs have been scrambles, so the majority of those rushing yards are on designated runs.  So, 58% passing, 42% running.  My RBs, however, just can't seem to get going in any formation against any formation.  I've tried them all, inside running, outside running, vs. Running D, vs. Passing D...  every combination in every formation...  just can't get them going.

4.  On the plus side, gameplanning seems to make more of a difference, though being able to see your opponents gameplans, and them able to see yours, certainly play into it.  It's  been very difficult to gameplan for my CC game, as I can actually see my opponent gameplanning at the same time making adjustments to his D as soon as I do something on O, and vice versa...  kinda funny last night as we were both countering each other for over two hours...  I'd make an ajustment and run some test games and find that he'd made adjustments and was also running test games...  Very funny...   I finally waited until a half hour before gametime to put in my final gameplan...  he must've waited until even closer to gametime, because he went in a different direction.

5.  Plugging in specific OL positions and DL/LB/DB/S positions seems to make a difference.  Early in the season, during the exhibition season, I went with generic OL, DL, LB and DB settings.  When non-con games started, I plugged in guys specifically where I wanted them (Tackles, Guards, Center, etc...)  Production on both sides of the ball seemed to go up significantly and when I use formations that don't have specific personnel setups, production doesn't seem as strong.

6.  Not sure about blitz #'s yet.  I'm thinking they may have turned these down a bit, as early on, I was getting around 10 a game and was only blitzing 10% across the board.  Now, with the same % setting, I'm getting about 3 per game, which seems pretty normal, HOWEVER, when I run test games now with 100% blitz across the board, I only seem to get about 5 or 6 per game, which doesn't seem like enough with blitzing set at 100%.

Overall, I'd have to say I'm liking what I'm seeing... or, at least the direction I see it taking.  If they can get some of the kinks worked out, I think we'll have a game to be proud of, but it's obviously not there yet.  Some of the above stuff may just be specific to my team of course, and there are still some of the little issues like fumbles recovered by the offense going back to the line of scrimmage, etc... that need to be worked out, but I think we're headed in the right direction overall.


ha yeah gameplanning for the conference championship game was a pain in the butt... but hilarious at the same time.  I like the test game feature, but we shouldn't be able to see our opponent's game plan.  I think a good suggestion for test game feature would be to make it so that instead of having test game use the game plans set by both teams, test game should use the game plan set by the tester for his own team and have the tester select a gameplan for the opponent's team to use (default would be the basic gameplan).  That way the test game feature can be used by gameplanners to anticipate their opponent's gameplans and how to counter them without actually revealing the opponent's gameplan.  Also, the hilarity of the back and forth gameplanning in the Conference Championship game revealed that short game passing is way, way too powerful: A Dime/Nickel defense set to play 100% against the pass routinely got lit up for 50+ points vs. short passing because of the routine 90+ % completion rates (this is way too high for any type of pass).  It was so bad that I found 4-4 anti-pass defenses fared better than the Dime/Nickel...medium to long passing on the other hand, is way underpowered: setting  a defense to run blitz against medium/long passes is basically death for that offense.
3/17/2013 6:49 PM
I never thought that it was almost solely about gam planning. I view it that if you have the superior team you will win the majority of the time. If you look at the Bava and Argento worlds in D1a you will see that there were "head scratches" for teams up there to. Personally I would think that WIS would want to throw as many options to us as customers. Does anybody know if Norbert reads these posts or are we just babbling in the wind?
3/17/2013 8:48 PM
Posted by starfinder77 on 3/17/2013 6:49:00 PM (view original):
I never thought that it was almost solely about gam planning. I view it that if you have the superior team you will win the majority of the time. If you look at the Bava and Argento worlds in D1a you will see that there were "head scratches" for teams up there to. Personally I would think that WIS would want to throw as many options to us as customers. Does anybody know if Norbert reads these posts or are we just babbling in the wind?
With D1 all SIM generated, recruited and coached teams, running exactly the same basic offenses and defenses, what could possibly be a head scratcher?  
of 3

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.