An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

**TombSong** · 09-08-2007, 08:52 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

I find that certain players have better games against certain players. Gold level legends may have more abilites but if they dont have THAT ability that would make them great against certain abilities that lower level legends have then that lower level legend could cause them problems in some facet of the game.

EXAMPLE:

One Gold legend DB may not be a speed burner at his position but the Bronze level WR is.

On most routes the Gold legend will stick to him like glue, but on crossing routes that bronze level legend is gonna abuse that Gold level DB because on a long route that allows the WR to break away with his speed, the Gold DB can only cover but for so long before he is outran across the field.

Too many assuptions are made about Gold level players, in that people think they enbody superior attributes across the board and they dont.

There are a SLEW of match ups you can examine in this game and that coupled with play calling makes this one of the most strategic football games we have seen in a long time.

**RogueHominid** · 09-08-2007, 09:44 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Originally posted by TombSong

I find that certain players have better games against certain players. Gold level legends may have more abilites but if they dont have THAT ability that would make them great against certain abilities that lower level legends have then that lower level legend could cause them problems in some facet of the game.

EXAMPLE:

One Gold legend DB may not be a speed burner at his position but the Bronze level WR is.

On most routes the Gold legend will stick to him like glue, but on crossing routes that bronze level legend is gonna abuse that Gold level DB because on a long route that allows the WR to break away with his speed, the Gold DB can only cover but for so long before he is outran across the field.

Too many assuptions are made about Gold level players, in that people think they enbody superior attributes across the board and they dont.

There are a SLEW of match ups you can examine in this game and that coupled with play calling makes this one of the most strategic football games we have seen in a long time.

EXACTLY. Think as well of guys with "quick feet" at the CB position. What does this mean? That they change direction well. Whom might they match up well with? Route Gods. Why? Because Route Gods are also very adept at changing directions without losing speed. Thus, a sliver corner with quick feet would not necessarily be a huge mismatch against a gold receiver with the Route God ability because his quickness matches up with that.

From the other end, I see lots of guys with gold corners who think they can just man up and press me all day because my receivers are lower tiers. One of them is a Bump Buster, and I know that unless I'm facing a select few corners, I can call a hot route and take advantage of a mismatch at the level of skill even if not at the level of tier.

Corners with Strength Bonus are another good example. If you're worried big backs hitting the perimiter of your defense, or about swing passes to big backs, having these guys helps out because they have a good chance of bringing even a big back down due to their strength.

There are tons of examples like these and the ones Tombsong cited to think of when evaluating how players play, how the game "works" or is "broken," etc. That's not to say anything about the "where's the defense" thread necessarily, as that's sort of a separate issue, or at least a different take on it, and is full of useful information by very knowledgable gamers. It is, however, to say that there are lots of considerations you have to go through when thinking about which matchups will and won't work and why.

Also, regarding the specific teams you've posted (Earl, Cunningham, Rice, Maynard), I've seen lots of them, and since I've adopted a new team philosophy, I've been getting great results (from 1000-something on the leader board to 50-something in the last two weeks) against these and other teams by putting pressure on them. Most people don't select o-lineman, as the generics will get you by. I've got an all-legend d-line, and they screw things up royally for people who go with all skill positions and no lineman. Sure, I give up some points, but I'm in every game, and my front four allows me the flexibility to stop the run (I hit a lot of guys in the backfield or at the line so the linebackers can clean up) and put serious pressure on the passing game, without having to sell out to do either. I almost never blitz, and have the luxury of mixing man and zone while my opponent is wondering which side of his line is going to collapse first. Sometimes they hold up, but they won't for a whole game, or even for long enough for those skill position guys to run away with the game. Try doing something like that and see what it does for you. I have plenty of games where guys like Rice or Maynard never have the time to become serious factors because the qb is just trying to evade the rush.

For guys who load up on defense and try to pressure you into mistakes, know how your guys match up, and go after a legend if you think your guy can out cut or out jump him. Don't do it every play, but do it. And put some shotgun plays in your book for those who like to bump, crowd the line, line their MLB in the C-G gap and try to do the 2k8 version of nano-blitzing. You'll have an extra second, and they'll either start runnind different sets or get burned because of the mismatches you'll create.

**burnwood** · 09-08-2007, 09:50 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

You forgot Person C

Person C: Earl-like runners are stoppable but too powerful in relation to their defensive legend counterparts.

(Seems this point always gets dropped so that you guys can rant on the extreme end of things.)

PS - and it's "lying"

**RogueHominid** · 09-08-2007, 09:57 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Well, no intent to rant here, burnwood; you bring up a valid and recurring point. It might just be that I'm happy with my team, but I have generics bringing down all tiers of backs, and my d-line typically disallows guys like Earl to get rolling. I might give up one run a game to those kinds of backs, but my corners are good tacklers, I've got an inkling of what kinds of plays to call once I get a sense of where my opponents like to run, and even though I agree that Earl breaks tackles of a sort and with a frequency that can only be described as ridiculous, I don't think there's a team out there that's de facto un-beatable.

I definitely defer to those more knowledgable than myself on some of these points, and I second all those who call for a second iteration of the game that has some things toned down and others toned up, but I'm still more or less happy with the game as I feel that any team is beatable and that any player is stoppable. I'm also the type that likes to look for productive solutions rather than wallowing in the misery occasioned by the game's imperfections (and it does have them), but that's just my philosophy.

**dunelly** · 09-08-2007, 10:18 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

good thread i was going to post the same

it's just how 1 person plays and who they play vs another persons experiences
Maynard should be gold, he has better stats than a few of the GOLD WRs.

Besides the obvious brken tackles/super offensive players are the plays itself.
Some of the plays cannot be stopped unless you go to the extreme like goaline or even bear. Pretend for a second that this is NFL 2k8. A lot of teams wouldn't even have bear in their playbook. (remmeber 2k5 team playbooks) There's some plays 4-3 or 3-4 alone cannot stop. yea yea, change defense,adapt,etc.
No NFL teams run 3-4, 4-3, bear,5-2 all just to stop 1-2 select plays. (yeayea, this isnt the nfl,its a game,blahblah)
It seems to me, the person stopping earl campbell has success running certain plays vs certain runs. Therefore earl CAN be STOPPED!

To me this isnt football, its rock paper scissors. People insist on the game being true to life, then later on contradict themselves by stating how this is just a game, so you must call X,Y plays to stop earl.

Ps dont even bring madden up as a reference point. Just because its better than madden doesn't mean it is flawless. FAR FROM IT lol
Sure offense can be stopped. But the way to go about it is really annoying and takes that imaginary idea of me being a football coach away to being a videogame coach.

**DA_Kenny** · 09-08-2007, 10:23 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

What plays are unstoppable that you are talkin bout?

**dunelly** · 09-08-2007, 10:29 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

By unstoppable I mean easily get 5-10 yards. All the various big packages are a headache. There's a reason everyone picks earl and use those packages online. Real teams defend them using 4-3 fronts. In here, people tell me to switch to 5-2, or 4-6, or gooaline. Main reason is how the linebackers play. You can debate it all day, but the fact is, they are SLOW in reaction to runs. OLB never play contain except sometimes when their zone is the deep flats. This leads to many earl running off tackles for 50 yds untouch. Yes I know about line stunts, manning LB on the RBs, Shifting strong,etc.

There's a similar problem with zone in the passing game. Say you call a cover 3. If there's a WR running a deep post and 1 running a short slant. The Safety will never drop to the deepest WR, but instead cheat up leaving the WR wide open.
To the poster who commented on the DB's specific traits.

I believe there's only 1-2 with quick feet. 2-3 have strength bonus. A few have coverage bonus.
Compare that to how many the Offense have. Many have route god in silver vs few with coverage + ball hawk DBs. (barney being the only 1) How many WRs/TE have tough in the middle vs defenders with "footsteps". How many offensive players have speed burner vs defenders?
There's an ability in the game call "closing speed". It's opposite in "breakaway burst". Yet NO defenders have it, unless you create your own players.
Even the abilities itself reward the offense too much. VC needs to give legend defenders more abilities and more consistency. Dropped INTs are another big issues that VC gives to the offense to give the stats a proper number.

**Sven Draconian** · 09-08-2007, 10:35 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Originally posted by Trojan Man

Well, no intent to rant here, burnwood; you bring up a valid and recurring point. It might just be that I'm happy with my team, but I have generics bringing down all tiers of backs, and my d-line typically disallows guys like Earl to get rolling. I might give up one run a game to those kinds of backs, but my corners are good tacklers, I've got an inkling of what kinds of plays to call once I get a sense of where my opponents like to run, and even though I agree that Earl breaks tackles of a sort and with a frequency that can only be described as ridiculous, I don't think there's a team out there that's de facto un-beatable.

I definitely defer to those more knowledgable than myself on some of these points, and I second all those who call for a second iteration of the game that has some things toned down and others toned up, but I'm still more or less happy with the game as I feel that any team is beatable and that any player is stoppable. I'm also the type that likes to look for productive solutions rather than wallowing in the misery occasioned by the game's imperfections (and it does have them), but that's just my philosophy.

Im not wallowing in Misery, and outside of an outlier game I havn't been burned by a runningback recently either. That doesn't mean I think the game has magically been fixed.

I can win with defense still by slowing the game down and doing a few new tricks I've been working on. Thats not the problem. Its still the same balance issue.

You guys are quick to point out that its "strategy" for the offense to see these mismatch's. Alright, I can understand that line of thinking....except we are back to the same old discussion of the defense not having those.

You can say that its simply about looking at attributes and noting that a speed burner should beat a non speed-burner. Alright, but there arn't enough speed burners on defense to counter all the speed burners on offense. Thus, we are back to the same discussion.

This is further magnified by the underpowered...or missing...defensive attributes. For example, closing speed...which no defenders have. Or "Big Hit" which makes no noteable impact in terms of gameplay. Or "Pass Rush" and "Sack Master" which seem to the same skill IMHO and is thus a waste for a player to have one of them.

On to the point of the post, which was simply a way of improving the balance of the game. I'll go back to one of my favorite examples which is Night Train Lane. He simply does not make the same impact as other gold players. As such, IMHO, he plays more like a silver player. Thus, changing him to Silver would increase his value and help the games balance.

On the other side, Cunningham who's "Rocket Arm" and "Scrambling" are such a formidable combo he is just as good as most gold level QB, but as a silver tier he is a much better choice than a gold QB (letting you pick somebody else as a gold).

In this short sample, having Lane is like having 4 silver players while having Cunningham is like having 3 golds. This is from my experience.

Now, lets look at say Metzellars who I frequently use and see on a lot of teams. Having Metz is again, like having an extra silver player with his ability to dominate the middle of the field. He makes a huge impact in a lot of games, a much bigger impact than say, Chris Spielman. Having them on the same tier seems to be an imbalance to me.

**DA_Kenny** · 09-08-2007, 10:48 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Originally posted by dunelly

There's a similar problem with zone in the passing game. Say you call a cover 3. If there's a WR running a deep post and 1 running a short slant. The Safety will never drop to the deepest WR, but instead cheat up leaving the WR wide open.

That is what a Cover 3 is tho, the Safety cheats up, and is not focus on the deep pass, hes focus on the short passes underneath.

Cover3 isnt design to protect the deep pass,

if you want a deep pass D call cover 4, then the safety will move up.

**Sven Draconian** · 09-08-2007, 11:12 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Originally posted by DA_Kenny

That is what a Cover 3 is tho, the Safety cheats up, and is not focus on the deep pass, hes focus on the short passes underneath.

Cover3 isnt design to protect the deep pass,

if you want a deep pass D call cover 4, then the safety will move up.

You are incorrect. The cover 3 is designed to contain a pro-style offense which presents three immediate vertical threats (2 WR, TE).

Its a safe zone, and what most teams are in late in a game when up by 14 or more. It provides coverage of any immediate deep route (Streak/Post/Flat) and gives 4 underneath to protect against screens and draws. Its even useful against a spread team as the speed of DBs makes having 4 vertical threats a waste as all 4 can typically be covered by just 3 men (giving the defense a numbers advantage). Its weakness (and why it died) is the WCO.

cover 4 is a prevent defense and is seldom run as its not really practicle at even the BCS-conference level college football. If a team was to run a Cover 4 (No safety support in the run) a screen pass, short slant or draw would eat them alive. Outside of the last 2 or 3 minutes of a TD game when the other team doesn't have timeouts you won't see much Cover 4 outside of high school/low level college.

**Disasterpiece** · 09-08-2007, 11:56 PM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Yeah, there is something jacked up with the zones. I played saftey, you never let somebody behind you, it's a cardinal sin.

**RogueHominid** · 09-09-2007, 12:24 AM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Originally posted by Sven Draconian

Im not wallowing in Misery, and outside of an outlier game I havn't been burned by a runningback recently either. That doesn't mean I think the game has magically been fixed.

I can win with defense still by slowing the game down and doing a few new tricks I've been working on. Thats not the problem. Its still the same balance issue.

You guys are quick to point out that its "strategy" for the offense to see these mismatch's. Alright, I can understand that line of thinking....except we are back to the same old discussion of the defense not having those.

You can say that its simply about looking at attributes and noting that a speed burner should beat a non speed-burner. Alright, but there arn't enough speed burners on defense to counter all the speed burners on offense. Thus, we are back to the same discussion.

This is further magnified by the underpowered...or missing...defensive attributes. For example, closing speed...which no defenders have. Or "Big Hit" which makes no noteable impact in terms of gameplay. Or "Pass Rush" and "Sack Master" which seem to the same skill IMHO and is thus a waste for a player to have one of them.

On to the point of the post, which was simply a way of improving the balance of the game. I'll go back to one of my favorite examples which is Night Train Lane. He simply does not make the same impact as other gold players. As such, IMHO, he plays more like a silver player. Thus, changing him to Silver would increase his value and help the games balance.

On the other side, Cunningham who's "Rocket Arm" and "Scrambling" are such a formidable combo he is just as good as most gold level QB, but as a silver tier he is a much better choice than a gold QB (letting you pick somebody else as a gold).

In this short sample, having Lane is like having 4 silver players while having Cunningham is like having 3 golds. This is from my experience.

Now, lets look at say Metzellars who I frequently use and see on a lot of teams. Having Metz is again, like having an extra silver player with his ability to dominate the middle of the field. He makes a huge impact in a lot of games, a much bigger impact than say, Chris Spielman. Having them on the same tier seems to be an imbalance to me.

Perhaps this is one of those my experience versus yours situations, Sven, but I disagree with your argument about Lane. First, I would maintain that there is a variability element in the game that keeps players playing slightly better or slightly worse from game to game, as my golds don't always dominate, nor do they always stink. Second, my experience with Lane is that when he's on, he'll blow up running plays to his side, chuck receivers to the ground, and pick off passes--a lot of production from a cornerback, and he's done all of the above to me online. On his off days, he may provide you with one or two of those elements, perhaps a few strong tackles and defensed passes, or one big pick or something. But I've never played a game against Lane where he's been useless to my opponent. He doesn't have the coverage bonus, if memory serves, so he's not airtight in coverage. I'll throw on him some because of this reason. But I also know that I'm taking a chance and that he'll dislodge his share of balls because of his physicality, and he might just snag one because of his ball skills.

Metzelaars, on the other hand, I will concede. That guy is a beast in this game, much moreso than he was in real life.

As for improving the balance of the game, it's tough to decide how to do that because people seem to have different experiences with different player--likely because of individual playing styles, roster setups and playcalling--and also because there's so much under the hood that we can't see just by looking at the player select screen. Example: Mel Renfro. I just put him on a squad to see what a silver corner other than Lem Barney played like. He played fast--not just "quick," as his attributes say, but "fast." There are lots of examples like that where guys do things that you just don't anticipate on the basis of their listed attributes, some of which effect how they play versus the offensive juggernauts that lots of online guys prefer. Nolan Cromwell, for example, can lay wood, and I'd trust him and Albert Lewis, who plays corner for my favorite team at the moment, to hunt Earl down if he gets past my line. Chuck Bednarik only has a couple of abilities, but he's a freaking heat-seeking missile. So who is to adjudicate in these types of situations?

Yes, LB takeoff speed should be improved and there should be fewer plays/players that seem to work no matter what you do, but I think the situation is more complicated than "ramp some guys up and some guys down," partially because we haven't really gotten to know what each player on the game or each play in the playbook does yet, and partly because some people have problems with certain plays/players and others don't. That's not to detract from your experience if it differs from mine, but just to say that I think it's tough to decide on these issues.

**grunt** · 09-09-2007, 12:52 AM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Originally posted by Disasterpiece

Yeah, there is something jacked up with the zones. I played saftey, you never let somebody behind you, it's a cardinal sin.

Then there are ton of safeties in the nfl that are major sinners.

**grunt** · 09-09-2007, 12:55 AM

Re: An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Here what I notice most players use their gold on a rb, wr, or qb. I use my gold on lb, dl, or a safety. If you want to stop great offensive players you need great defensive players. I haven't seen many gold inside linebackers on line because everyone want their gold players on offense.

An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Recommended Videos

An easy way to level the playing field (Offense vs Defense)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment