Warrior General Games

Surely it's not this hard to get a correction made on an incorrect defensive formation.

Just draw a diagram using photoshop, put in all the techniques and gaps (lbs's and dl's) and how they all line up in BASICS for the stock 43, the Over and the Under, and explaining the doubling of the NT......and present it to the mod or person who originally PM'd you. That's all that's needed for this particular correction.

Those videos would still be important for Bort because regardless of the LDE's 6-technique placement, there's a lot of defensive principles being explained about how the 4-3 works and how LBs should be coded in the sim's logic in regards to gap responsibility and how they slide to guard the cut-back lanes, etc.

BUT....that kind of stuff can come later when Bort wants to revamp the sim-AI logic for blocking, run-reading, etc, or does all his sim-tweaking. Him learning from those videos how the sim's logic should replicate. Because the very sim itself in its current form anyway needs revamping one day. But the first step for now is fixing the error, which can be done now and still support the current sim.

Originally posted by GG
Surely it's not this hard to get a correction made on an incorrect defensive formation.

Just draw a diagram using photoshop, put in all the techniques and gaps (lbs's and dl's) and how they all line up in BASICS for the stock 43, the Over and the Under, and explaining the doubling of the NT......and present it to the mod or person who originally PM'd you. That's all that's needed for this particular correction.

Those videos would still be important for Bort because regardless of the LDE's 6-technique placement, there's a lot of defensive principles being explained about how the 4-3 works and how LBs should be coded in the sim's logic in regards to gap responsibility and how they slide to guard the cut-back lanes, etc.

BUT....that kind of stuff can come later when Bort wants to revamp the sim-AI logic for blocking, run-reading, etc, or does all his sim-tweaking. Him learning from those videos how the sim's logic should replicate. Because the very sim itself in its current form anyway needs revamping one day. But the first step for now is fixing the error, which can be done now and still support the current sim.








He's already read this entire thread. He needs a resource. If we qualified as that he would have just copied our digrams, explanations, an arguments. You are forgetting that they've known it's wrong for several seasons, and haven't seen fit to change it yet. And as you can also see out of all these gobs of suggestions in this forum this one attracted the attention of maybe 10 people who agreed with us. So there isn't exactly a groundswell of angst amongst GLB users over this issue. I think the issue is convincing Bort that it won't make strong side runs worse. WHich is the common belief among most mods/admins. They are scared like Deathblade that if you move the NT to the weak side it will make the strong side weaker. We have to have a correct diagram from a "source". I get where your coming from, but giving them something that has incorrect info on it just because it has some of the correct info is just going to provide an argument against our cause. None of this is right. It's been proven in this thread and should be fixed. BUt it just doesn;t work that way. We are fortunate that we have a way to BOrt's ear. Actually what was requested was a single online resource for all this info. I don't think they will fix it without letting people option to the old way. So the only way that will happen is to fix the DPC to allow players to be placed on either side of the field, without being stacked in the same exact place. So we have to have a suggestion there as to how that gets done. Dline techniques provide a viable way for Bort to make the line placements assinged instead of placed. That's all this is about really. We have a D-line technique diagram and that will work and I have a good sourced explanation of it. Just need an honest to goodness 4-3 diagram. We have the Over and Under.

coachhuey.com is an online resource for real life coaches.

paw thru there and you're sure to find a single thread/playbook/diagrams that show the basic 43 scheme and gap asignments.

where are we on this? has the OP done all he needs to?

I dont know where the OP is on this. Last I heard it was playoffs season 10 and he needed to scout and do AI stuff for his team.

But it'd be good to hear back from him on where he is. And if others can find online resources, post it here just in case the OP hasnt found anything.

But I still dont think all that is needed before a change can be made.

Agree with the OP, +1

Actually, the default non shifted 4-3 alignment is much more like this now:

--------ROLB------MLB------LOLB-------
----RDE---------DT-------NT----LDE-----
------LOT---LG---C---RG---ROT---TE----


It used to be the other way, shifted with the tackles more to the weak site, but we switched it up a couple seasons ago, and added the weak/strong shifts to go with. Go make a custom D play and you can see what I mean - the 4-3 defaults all use the unshifted base setup. Also, you can move them left and right to line up over wherever gap you want, really (within exploit reason).

So the main issue is really that the DT and NT position labels are reversed from what you're talking about, which, while possibly more correct, is still just a label for the position. Changing the label should be easy enough, I suppose, but what are the other implications of the update? There are an awful lot of custom D plays out there that would have to be updated if we were to swap the DT's, player builds might run into issues as discussed earlier, etc. Are those things going to cause big issues?

Originally posted by Bort
Actually, the default non shifted 4-3 alignment is much more like this now:

--------ROLB------MLB------LOLB-------
----RDE---------DT-------NT----LDE-----
------LOT---LG---C---RG---ROT---TE----


It used to be the other way, shifted with the tackles more to the weak site, but we switched it up a couple seasons ago, and added the weak/strong shifts to go with. Go make a custom D play and you can see what I mean - the 4-3 defaults all use the unshifted base setup. Also, you can move them left and right to line up over wherever gap you want, really (within exploit reason).

So the main issue is really that the DT and NT position labels are reversed from what you're talking about, which, while possibly more correct, is still just a label for the position. Changing the label should be easy enough, I suppose, but what are the other implications of the update? There are an awful lot of custom D plays out there that would have to be updated if we were to swap the DT's, player builds might run into issues as discussed earlier, etc. Are those things going to cause big issues?

As a DC, I say switch 'em.

We can't just switch them, as there are line shifts and defensive fronts that benefit from having the NT next to the LDE. I say give us the option to flip them on a play-by-play basis - a toggle or checkbox or the like.

Doing so will affect matchups and player builds. It would let me match up my strongest run stuffer (my NT) against the offense's best run blocker (his Center) without sacrificing the gap assignments of the rest of my front 7. The LG in that scenario will either be doubling the NT if the C needs help, or getting to the second level. DTs finding themselves on the strong side will probably need to invest more in stopping the run, while RGs suddenly finding themselves dealing with 3-technique pass rushers will probably need to invest more in protecting the quarterback.

Isn't the problem be solved by allowing DL general to work from both DT and NT positions (only one active if both have the SA). And adding a DT1 custom slot (to allow DC to play under) ?

It will allow each DC to place each player where he wants, and with the DPC he can shift them to whatever technique needed.

There will be a naming issue for the default setting, which should be switch. But any DC that is not happy can easily use the old system by setting switching roles in the deptch chart.

Originally posted by Bort

So the main issue is really that the DT and NT position labels are reversed from what you're talking about, which, while possibly more correct, is still just a label for the position. Changing the label should be easy enough, I suppose, but what are the other implications of the update? There are an awful lot of custom D plays out there that would have to be updated if we were to swap the DT's, player builds might run into issues as discussed earlier, etc. Are those things going to cause big issues?

It's not just a label tho, Bort. There is a strategic principle behind the 4-3 system.
There's another thread here too....
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3114542

It's hard to re-re-repeat all the good points made across threads in one post to justify why it should be switched and HOW it would affect the sim etc. But, see the OP of the thread I just linked, and i have a few points quoted there WHY the switch should be made.


In real life, teams rush weakside more, why the NT is there on the weakside. Now that we have a billion more rush plays in the game, to both sides, then the NT can now be put in his correct position. Also, the very 4-3 pass-rush dynamic relies on the monster NT tying up a double-block from the LG-C in order for the RDE to be a pass-rush specialist 1-on-1 on the blindside getting more pressure than we see in GLB. Which also has to be justified why the LT has the "pass block" SA and why you've also included QB able to be blind-sided vision-wise (cos they're all right-handers).

A test/example for you.....see a play where the TE is blocking on the left in a pass play, and how the NT currently on the strongside causes the LDE to get far more pressure 1-on-1 on such plays. That's how it SHOULD be working with the NT on the weakside.

Also, I strongly recommend watching those youtube videos i posted in this thread, so you can see how the 4-3 works, the gap assignments etc, how it "should" work in a sim-way. Also see the other thread i linked, the OP, for a suggestion how to implement gap-system in the advanced AI for LBs/DEs, as well as implement collision-awareness for players.

No issues with switching them around, in fact, only will improve the sim functionality of the 4-3 system. In pass-rushing especially.
There is no adverse affect to agents who have the "D-Line General" SA.

The 43-Base should be NT weak, LBs centered.
The 43-Under (strong) should be NT strong, with LBS shifted strong (a system used against strong-I bread-butter plays).
The 43-Over (weak) should be NT weak, with LBs shifted weak (a system used against weak-i bread-butter plays).

As the default set-up for the DPC, there wont be any problems whatsoever there.

With far more plays we now have, rushes to both sides, then there's no adverse effect here. But gives justification for setting up DPC custom plays with a Strong or Weak 43 system to combat weak-i and strong-i plays.

For DCs/GMs, all they're doing now is putting in their true NT in the NT position, and putting their more agile 2-gap DT (the UT) in the correct position. No adverse effects to anyone. Will only improve the whole 43 pass-rush dynamic more, having the QB corralled by a RDE 1-on-1 weakside, and a 2-gap agile UT on the strong side.

Bort, I fail to see the problem of simply giving both the NT and DT enough range of motion in the DPC that their spots can be switched if the DC wants. Easy effortless fix with no negative implications...

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Bort, I fail to see the problem of simply giving both the NT and DT enough range of motion in the DPC that their spots can be switched if the DC wants. Easy effortless fix with no negative implications...

true enough, but most people in this thread seem to want a lot more than that.

up