Yeah but who needs a realistic game engine when you have pretty helmet designs!!

hoospack wrote: Gatr22 wrote: hoospack wrote: This game Warpigs vs Cardsharks is yet another example of how poor this game engine is. Warsaw played with 0 CB's and the Cardsharks played with a full passing attack. Somehow, instead of WR's running wide open, the passing attack was shut down? Give me a break. Bunch of garbage. Might as well just play random formations since it apparently doesn't matter to the game engine. More evidence of the game engine just taking your formation and defaulting players to zones on each down. Surprising result, but in the end the game engine uses any legal formation and then it comes down to rolling the dice for each play. Home field probably helped some too, then a few plays/rolls and you get the lopsided result Absolutely agree. Random zones and random rolls of the dice. Pretty much nullifies any real strategy in this game when your opponent is allowed to play without actually filling out normal football positions and the game defaults it for them. Want to point out that I am not calling out Warsaw, but am simply pointing out the nonsense of this game engine.

I agree that the engine is unrealistic and quite poor, especially about defensive orders. Now that the run and the pass are both effective, setting defensive strategies is like rolling a dice.

However I think the engine still allows for
different strategies, both ingame and about team building. Playing with 2 OLBs and 0 CBs is unrealistic in real life, but in GI it allows to use just two defenders as 1st line of pass defence, without penalising run defence. If you have two really strong OLBs is more effective than playing with 4 defenders.

I would use this setting, but I have trained two really good WRs as CBs before the changes in the match engine. Their strength is not too high and my OLBs are still growing.

ahahah AHA HAH AaAAh haha HA h h h HA HA H H HHAHAHAHAAHAHAAH ha h ah

i have had bowel movements which resemble American Football more than this game does.

A AghaH ah aH Ah aH Ah AHHahAHahHHAHHAH ha

liberalmente wrote: LucaF wrote: However I think the engine still allows for different strategies, both ingame and about team building. Playing with 2 OLBs and 0 CBs is unrealistic in real life, but in GI it allows to use just two defenders as 1st line of pass defence, without penalising run defence. If you have two really strong OLBs is more effective than playing with 4 defenders. I agree completely.

Once again, I will repeat that the reason for this thread was to point out "another example of terrible game engine".

None of what you said is actual football strategies. Which is the entire point of this thread. Your statement further proves my point. Sure there are "grid-iron strategies", but they aren't football strategies. Your strategy is basically manipulating the code of the engine, and NOT related to football.

Combine this with the ramped up homefield advantage and you now have a disaster of a game engine. It has now become nearly impossible to even win at the home of mediocre teams.

You would think that they would have fixed these things before practically begging people to signup for "Ultimate Supporter". But nope. Imagine how much more money the developers could make if they actually had a working "football simulation".

I am a bit surprised that there are still people in this community who defend the developers and this game engine.

Anyways, it appears that there is a sizeable segment of this community that doesn't seem to actually care about fixing the problems with this game, so I will just stop posting about it and let this thread die.

Have a great day!

LucaF wrote: hoospack wrote: liberalmente wrote: LucaF wrote: However I think the engine still allows for different strategies, both ingame and about team building. Playing with 2 OLBs and 0 CBs is unrealistic in real life, but in GI it allows to use just two defenders as 1st line of pass defence, without penalising run defence. If you have two really strong OLBs is more effective than playing with 4 defenders. I agree completely. Once again, I will repeat that the reason for this thread was to point out "another example of terrible game engine". None of what you said is actual football strategies. Which is the entire point of this thread. Your statement further proves my point. Sure there are "grid-iron strategies", but they aren't football strategies. Your strategy is basically manipulating the code of the engine, and NOT related to football. Combine this with the ramped up homefield advantage and you now have a disaster of a game engine. It has now become nearly impossible to even win at the home of mediocre teams. You would think that they would have fixed these things before practically begging people to signup for "Ultimate Supporter". But nope. Imagine how much more money the developers could make if they actually had a working "football simulation". I am a bit surprised that there are still people in this community who defend the developers and this game engine. Anyways, it appears that there is a sizeable segment of this community that doesn't seem to actually care about fixing the problems with this game, so I will just stop posting about it and let this thread die. Have a great day! I am not defending the developers and the engine: I said the engine is poor and unrealistic, and I also said that I hate defensive orders. I don't have any power in fixing the problems with the game, and I also think the developers will never do anything about it, since they have not done anything in years. However I still like the game. You said that "strategies don't really matter much in this game", I was just pointing out that there are different possible strategies both in offensive orders and in defensive posititioning, even if the engine is poor.

yes, and it is not even true that the house factor is so decisive, although honestly I would lower it a little more. And it is not true that setting the defense on launches or runs is so decisive, as seen it is not "a disaster" if you make a mistake.
Honestly, however, I agree with hoospack that it is sad to see such imaginative formations: I would change this aspect of the game and force the manager to field at least one lbm, at least one lbo R, at least one lbo L and the same for cb L / R.