Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou
Yes. And why don't they in FOF? Probably because your injury setting is unrealistically low. As has been pointed out, if you play with an unrealistic injury setting, you should expect some unrealistic things to happen. If you want realism, turn up injuries to somewhere in the 300s. Otherwise, the "realism" argument falls completely flat. What we're seeing is people wanting to play with unrealistic injuries but not accepting the consequences of doing so. Passing efficiency doesn't really decrease with over-usage. Both 538 and Football Outsiders (among others) have shown that. I recall reading a study at one of those two showing that even "overusing" play action (something like 10-15 times per game) doesn't reduce its effectiveness.
|
I dont think the realism argument falls flat at all, as long as the expectations are realistic. People have jobs/life and we're stuck to a single simulation in MP to sign replacements for injured players(if players even get midweeks). Its asinine to expect that kind of commitment from players and commish's and its an ovr bad business model for a sim game. But I argue its not out of the question to curb these one dimensional offenses.
I think you make a good point with pass efficiency not dropping off with over usage but "over usage" is far from "all of the damn time" lol. At some point the law of diminishing returns will play its role and thats where I think the "familiars" argument holds weight and why its featured in the game.
If familiars isn't the answer, maybe expanding the defensive mechanics in the game could be a solution. Making defenses multiple; exotic blitz's, alignments, coverage's; whatever... As of now, going up against a 100% pass attack, we're helpless on the defensive side of the ball.
Also, whatever argument you have for PA here is irrelevant. There are no NFL teams implementing a 100% pass attack. If there is literally no threat of run AT ALL, do you think a LB is still going to bite?