Defensive AI change...

[claystone]

I hope they make this change on the defense. I like to see a defense formation check box that you check when a certian offensive personnel comes in. I.E.: If they had a box in the gameplan that showed your opponents personnel, lets say one for 3WR, one for 4WR, and one for 5WR. You would check nickle and/or dime packages to correspond to that personnel. I'm just frustrated when reading my game logs and find out my opponents in a 3WR set and I'm in 3-4 normal formation instead of nickle or dime. I've had my opponent in 2 back set with 2 WR and my defense was in Dime formation. This is totally frustrating. You matter how you set your game plan, the AI will never read personnel making you have the wrong formation on the field.

Jim if you can have this extra personnel box for defensive gameplan, it will help the computer AI know what personnel on defense formations should be out there. Yes, even in nickle they can be looking for the run, but atleast the defense would have the right formation to counter the offense.

Just a thought.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Great idea. It adds a little bit in-game coaching that is otherwise missing from a games that are played via export files.

[Nogram]

+1

[Icy]

Good idea, it frustrates me too.

[Ben E Lou]

Unless a bug of some sort has crept into a recent patch, this is already hard-coded in place for 4WR and 5WR. You should see nickel and dime being used 100% of the time against those sets. For 3WR, it would definitely need to be a setting and not hard-coded. Depending on the personnel of the other team, there are times that I wouldn't want the nickel package against the 3WR.

As far as dime versus two backs, I don't think a setting here is a good idea. The obvious offensive move would be to crank up the two-back sets in passing situations, and thereby severely reduce or even eliminate the use of nickel and dime when it matters most.

[claystone]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Unless a bug of some sort has crept into a recent patch, this is already hard-coded in place for 4WR and 5WR. You'll should see nickel and dime being used 100% of the time against those sets. For 3WR, it would definitely need to be a setting and not hard-coded. Depending on the personnel of the other team, there are times that I wouldn't want the nickel package against the 3WR.

As far as dime versus two backs, I don't think a setting here is a good idea. The obvious offensive move would be to crank up the two-back sets in passing situations, and thereby severely reduce or even eliminate the use of nickel and dime when it matters most.

Hey Skydog,

I missed spoke or left out something. When the personnel is in 2 back sets, there will also be a check box in the gameplan that will allow you to set your normal defense for that personnel. So here is how the gameplan box would be set up.:

1. 2 Back set = (You would check the box for your normal defense personnel)

2. 3WR Set = (You will check the box for nickel Defense)

3. 4WR or 5WR = (You will check the box for dime)

This will all be in the defensive gameplan sections that will be done before the game. So now the computers AI will see your opponents personnel coming out and corrdinate with your personnel to match up. This doesn't affect your (agg. run / run / pass / agg. pass) % that you have already set. You can come out with a nickel and still call run, but atleast your personnel is matching up with your opponents.

I've had dime formations against 2 backs sets, and I had normal defense sets against 3WR or 4WR. This really kills my games because i'm mismatched.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by claystone

Hey Skydog,

I missed spoke or left out something. When the personnel is in 2 back sets, there will also be a check box in the gameplan that will allow you to set your normal defense for that personnel. So here is how the gameplan box would be set up.:

1. 2 Back set = (You would check the box for your normal defense personnel)

That's exactly as I understood it. The obvious response to such a checkbox would be to set the offense up to be in a 2-back set the vast majority of the time in passing situations--especially on 3rd and, say, 4-9. Your defense would get eaten alive on those critical downs, I'm fairly certain.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by claystone

I had normal defense sets against 3WR or 4WR. This really kills my games because i'm mismatched.

Just to verify my earlier statement, I just went through half a dozen game logs, around 30-40 instances of 4WR. Not once was the defense not in nickel or dime. This adjustment is already there. And I'd argue that I wouldn't want it in 3WR too much, either, for the same reasons as above. The offensive game plan would just rely on running out of single-back against the nickel all day long. I'd *much* rather this be situational than formation-based.

[Antmeister]

I've had dime formations against 2 backs sets, and I had normal defense sets against 3WR or 4WR. This really kills my games because i'm mismatched.

What was the situation? 3rd and long? Or 3rd and 1? Because you can drastically reduce how often you team would go into a dime formation if you go to the right screen. There is nothing wrong with using a Dime against a 2-back set if the team better suited for the pass than the run.

[claystone]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

That's exactly as I understood it. The obvious response to such a checkbox would be to set the offense up to be in a 2-back set the vast majority of the time in passing situations--especially on 3rd and, say, 4-9. Your defense would get eaten alive on those critical downs, I'm fairly certain.

Skydog:

But your defense would be matched up against their personnel, and on 3rd down you will be calling pass play since you set your passing % based upon the 3rd down sitiuation.

I hear your postion, but I can set my game plan on 2 back sets on 2nd down and always have pass plays too. What is going to stop me from being pick apart is my good defense. It all comes down to how good my players are in the end. I can be in nickel on every pass play and still get eaten alive if my players are terrible.

[Antmeister]

And the reason I would be against it is because situational gameplanning works much better. If I had a checkbox for a 2-back set, yet I was leading by 3 points with just under 3 minutes to go. I had much rather be in that dime more often than not. The checkbox locks me into a defensive formation 100% of the time regardless of the situation (down and distance).

[claystone]

Guys,

Its was just a thought. Maybe its me. It just frustrates me that i can't match personnel sometimes. In the NFL, when players sub in the defense as we all know subs to match. Then they figure if its going to be a pass or run.

[Passacaglia]

I guess the other thing to think about is that even if you're able to play a "nickel" defense when the offense comes out in 3WR or 4WR, you still wouldn't be able to actually change personnel, right?