Narcizo
04-18-2006, 03:55 AM
Just the title of this thread makes me feel all big and clever. Even if it is just a liiiitle bit pretentious. I'm not even sure if this thread belongs here but anyway.
My basic question is "Do you think any gameplan allowable in the game is acceptable in a multiplayer game or do you think that there is some sort of standard that should be adhered to"?
I ask this because I recently was accused of using an unrealistic gameplan in a multiplayer league. Obviously there's no rule that can be put in place but should players avoid using cheesy gameplans? The nature, and flaws, of the game mean that it's possible to use exploits.
For example, as far as I know, the AI won't modify a defensive gameplan in-game to counter an offensive gameplan that uses solely passes or runs. So if you've set up a reputation as a running team in the league you can probably switch to an all-pass offence and completely catch your opponent off-guard. In real life a) you probably wouldn't be able to switch tactics so radically and b) the other team would soon realise what you're doing and switch their defensive stance accordingly. Of course, there's no opportunity to do that in an MP league.
This wasn't the case that I was called up on though. I had been using a balanced offence but, in order to exploit a dodgy pass defence, I switched to a (basically) 100% medium-long passing offence. Personally I wasn't impressed with the results (although we won, thanks to three picks by my defence, their defence were familiar with many of our plays by the half-time mark) but I can understand how an opponent could find that the tactic ruined his suspension of disbelief and spoiled his enjoyment of the league. (I attempted only four runs until my 4th quarter lead gameplan kicked in). I've, occasionally, used the plan in another league without anyone commenting on it, negatively.
However the gameplan does exploit a weakness in the game AI - the fact that long passes are too effective in FOF while short passes are, relatively speaking, rubbish as they tend to kill third down conversion attempts.
My reasoning was
1) I want to pass the ball more and throw it deeper to exploit my offensive strengths and my opponents' weaknesses.
2) I don't want to be throwing short passes when I'm 3rd and long. That means I can't throw short at all.
3) If I'm not going to throw short passes then there's not much point running the ball. Unless I feel that I can make 10 yards in one play. Which I don't. Or I'm willing to run the ball a lot more. Which I don't want to do.
Leading to 4) I wind up throwing medium-deep on every down.
Around point 2 my thinking departs from the real world to FOF world. In the real world I'd be happy to throw short passes on 1st and 2nd down (and 3rd and short). But in FOF there's no opportunity to say "Don't throw short on 3rd and long". So, I set the passing to 10+ yards. That has a knock-on effect that I don't want to run the ball. If I'm throwing for 10+ yards 70% of the time there's no point rushing for 4 yards and wasting a shot at a 1st down conversion. 4 yards gains me precisely nothing. So, in tailoring my gameplan to the realities of FOF rather than of, erm well, reality, I've highlighted the "gaminess" of FOF and, possibly, made it less interesting for my opponent.
Of course my planning also took into account the fact that my opponent wouldn't be defensively planning for an all-out pass offence. I would imagine that the tactic would fall flat if used regularly as opponents would be able to set up all-out pass defences. Highlighting the exploity nature of it.
So should people try to use "realistic" gameplans or does anything go in gameplanning?
My basic question is "Do you think any gameplan allowable in the game is acceptable in a multiplayer game or do you think that there is some sort of standard that should be adhered to"?
I ask this because I recently was accused of using an unrealistic gameplan in a multiplayer league. Obviously there's no rule that can be put in place but should players avoid using cheesy gameplans? The nature, and flaws, of the game mean that it's possible to use exploits.
For example, as far as I know, the AI won't modify a defensive gameplan in-game to counter an offensive gameplan that uses solely passes or runs. So if you've set up a reputation as a running team in the league you can probably switch to an all-pass offence and completely catch your opponent off-guard. In real life a) you probably wouldn't be able to switch tactics so radically and b) the other team would soon realise what you're doing and switch their defensive stance accordingly. Of course, there's no opportunity to do that in an MP league.
This wasn't the case that I was called up on though. I had been using a balanced offence but, in order to exploit a dodgy pass defence, I switched to a (basically) 100% medium-long passing offence. Personally I wasn't impressed with the results (although we won, thanks to three picks by my defence, their defence were familiar with many of our plays by the half-time mark) but I can understand how an opponent could find that the tactic ruined his suspension of disbelief and spoiled his enjoyment of the league. (I attempted only four runs until my 4th quarter lead gameplan kicked in). I've, occasionally, used the plan in another league without anyone commenting on it, negatively.
However the gameplan does exploit a weakness in the game AI - the fact that long passes are too effective in FOF while short passes are, relatively speaking, rubbish as they tend to kill third down conversion attempts.
My reasoning was
1) I want to pass the ball more and throw it deeper to exploit my offensive strengths and my opponents' weaknesses.
2) I don't want to be throwing short passes when I'm 3rd and long. That means I can't throw short at all.
3) If I'm not going to throw short passes then there's not much point running the ball. Unless I feel that I can make 10 yards in one play. Which I don't. Or I'm willing to run the ball a lot more. Which I don't want to do.
Leading to 4) I wind up throwing medium-deep on every down.
Around point 2 my thinking departs from the real world to FOF world. In the real world I'd be happy to throw short passes on 1st and 2nd down (and 3rd and short). But in FOF there's no opportunity to say "Don't throw short on 3rd and long". So, I set the passing to 10+ yards. That has a knock-on effect that I don't want to run the ball. If I'm throwing for 10+ yards 70% of the time there's no point rushing for 4 yards and wasting a shot at a 1st down conversion. 4 yards gains me precisely nothing. So, in tailoring my gameplan to the realities of FOF rather than of, erm well, reality, I've highlighted the "gaminess" of FOF and, possibly, made it less interesting for my opponent.
Of course my planning also took into account the fact that my opponent wouldn't be defensively planning for an all-out pass offence. I would imagine that the tactic would fall flat if used regularly as opponents would be able to set up all-out pass defences. Highlighting the exploity nature of it.
So should people try to use "realistic" gameplans or does anything go in gameplanning?