Improving upon the new Franchise features moving forward

[jsteele14]

Regarding schemes, I like the idea that the whole playbook is available just like it would be for a real coach. The game monitors your play calls and determines your scheme based on the most common type of plays run. The scheme could be determined based on a rolling 3 game sample size of play calls. That way if your QB goes down and the backup has a totally different skill set then changing schemes mid way through season is possible.

Keeping the playbook wide open would allow for some cross scheme plays which is a realistic outcome because coaches do not always fall neatly into a particular scheme.

This would make the scheme actually meaningful and based on your actual play calls.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[adembroski]

Schemes that aren't a smorgasbord of outdated concepts.

Tampa 2 hasn't been anybody's base for 5 years at least.
46 hasn't been anybody's base since the Buddy Ryan Cardinals.
Run and shoot?! Seriously?
Where is the Defense De Jour, Seattle Press 3?
Some player archetypes are missing. Where's the press corner (Sherman, Peterson), run-stopping linebackers should be split between pursuit (Telvin Smith) and pluggers (Shazier.)

[shockl3y]

Hopefully this new Madden team will build off of new features instead of abandoning them and reintroducing them later as “new” features.

[stinkubus]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

Schemes that aren't a smorgasbord of outdated concepts. Tampa 2 hasn't been anybody's base for 5 years at least. 46 hasn't been anybody's base since the Buddy Ryan Cardinals. Run and shoot?! Seriously? Where is the Defense De Jour, Seattle Press 3? Some player archetypes are missing. Where's the press corner (Sherman, Peterson), run-stopping linebackers should be split between pursuit (Telvin Smith) and pluggers (Shazier.)

Until the play of deep zones is made more robust Tampa 2 is always going to be a strong option due to the CBs in cloud flats. All the best base coverages feature at least one outside CB in some type of flat zone. Literally everything else you can try really struggles to defend the intermediate sideline.

With the current meta a player can call T2, make minimal to no adjustments, user only their assigned area of the field and still enjoy some modest success. Since the cloud flat CB can reroute the WR to the inside nearly 100% of the time you almost never have to account for the space between him and the deep S, so your only major vulnerability is the deep middle, and the mid read *is* capable of sometimes handling that.

If the deep middle worries you then a single hot route (MLB in a deep third) covers it, and the only draw back is slightly more ground to cover with your user.

Attempting to run a 3 deep scheme requires the ability to make extensive use of hot routes and the ability to intelligently freelance with your user defender when necessary.

Outside third zones completely ignore outs and corners even when they are the deepest routes entering their zone, and this completely breaks the scheme.

Attempting to buzz them using a LB or a S is marginally effective at best. This means you're going to get picked apart by simple high low reads on the sideline unless you commit your user to it or hot route the outside CB to a cloud flat and expose that sideline deep.

As if that weren't enough to worry about there's also a widely known vulnerability in the deep seam with all stock 3 deep coverages, and the majority of teams (using stock rosters) are capable of exploiting it.

I just did some quick testing in practice mode, and you can get over the top of a stock 3 deep shell with as little as 91 THP at QB and 92 SPD at WR. The QB I was using had only 74 DAC.

The only way to shut this down is to change the CB lined up to the field from a deep third to a deep half, so now you aren't even really playing 3 deep any longer, but rather using split field coverage.

I suppose there's nothing intrinsically wrong with having a franchise scheme that is very difficult to execute in practice, but it would definitely frustrate and anger a lot of users if the game were directing them to run a D which set them up to fail because they lack the ability to execute it.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by stinkubus

Until the play of deep zones is made more robust Tampa 2 is always going to be a strong option due to the CBs in cloud flats. All the best base coverages feature at least one outside CB in some type of flat zone. Literally everything else you can try really struggles to defend the intermediate sideline. With the current meta a player can call T2, make minimal to no adjustments, user only their assigned area of the field and still enjoy some modest success. Since the cloud flat CB can reroute the WR to the inside nearly 100% of the time you almost never have to account for the space between him and the deep S, so your only major vulnerability is the deep middle, and the mid read *is* capable of sometimes handling that. If the deep middle worries you then a single hot route (MLB in a deep third) covers it, and the only draw back is slightly more ground to cover with your user. Attempting to run a 3 deep scheme requires the ability to make extensive use of hot routes and the ability to intelligently freelance with your user defender when necessary. Outside third zones completely ignore outs and corners even when they are the deepest routes entering their zone, and this completely breaks the scheme. Attempting to buzz them using a LB or a S is marginally effective at best. This means you're going to get picked apart by simple high low reads on the sideline unless you commit your user to it or hot route the outside CB to a cloud flat and expose that sideline deep. As if that weren't enough to worry about there's also a widely known vulnerability in the deep seam with all stock 3 deep coverages, and the majority of teams (using stock rosters) are capable of exploiting it. I just did some quick testing in practice mode, and you can get over the top of a stock 3 deep shell with as little as 91 THP at QB and 92 SPD at WR. The QB I was using had only 74 DAC. The only way to shut this down is to change the CB lined up to the field from a deep third to a deep half, so now you aren't even really playing 3 deep any longer, but rather using split field coverage. I suppose there's nothing intrinsically wrong with having a franchise scheme that is very difficult to execute in practice, but it would definitely frustrate and anger a lot of users if the game were directing them to run a D which set them up to fail because they lack the ability to execute it.

Not going to argue with anything you say , but I think it's more about giving the CPU teams a scheme representative of the one they are actually playing in real life with respect to offline

Users can change the scheme/play book any time they choose if they aren't happy with the pre-set one

[TheGr8Drake28]

Do you guys choose to play as Coach or Owner when playing an offline franchise?

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheGr8Drake28

Do you guys choose to play as Coach or Owner when playing an offline franchise?

Coach always and coach mode in gameplay, not one bit interested in team finances , only reason I'd see to be an owner is if you would be looking to relocate

[TheGr8Drake28]

Quote: Originally Posted by briz1046

Coach always and coach mode in gameplay, not one bit interested in team finances , only reason I'd see to be an owner is if you would be looking to relocate

Yeah, that is a good point. Now do you create your own coach, or stick with the real life coach for that team?