Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Questions Re: Beating Video Games

#61

Hey Kane...

You were seemingly enthusiastic about switching up playbooks.

Did you ever try it? If so, how did it go?
[Image: giphy.gif]

Another day on the Jaguars Message Board...
Welcome to Jacksonville:  "We don't deal with carnival folk."




Reply

#62
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2018, 11:07 PM by JagsorDie.)

1. Fallout 3/ skyrim because technically there is not a end game so there is no beating them.

2. Fallout 3/ skyrim because Bethesda just gets me lol. Really though, they were awesome games and even after more hours then I care to reveal invested in both I can still play and find things I have never seen in each.

Edit: I didn't beat them I misread op #2. But those would still be my picks because even after the main storyline is over there is still so much content to explore. Also worth mentioning, assassin creed black sails was surprising fun to push to get to 100%

3. All COD games. I loved the first modern warfare but after that I always got this feeling that I was playing laser tag with weak rewards that left me underwhelmed and uninterested in grinding for content.
Reply

#63

(09-23-2018, 10:55 PM)JagsorDie Wrote: 1. Fallout 3/ skyrim because technically there is not a end game so there is no beating them.

2. Fallout 3/ skyrim because Bethesda just gets me lol. Really though, they were awesome games and even after more hours then I care to reveal invested in both I can still play and find things I have never seen in each.

Edit: I didn't beat them I misread op #2. But those would still be my picks because even after the main storyline is over there is still so much content to explore. Also worth mentioning, assassin creed black sails was surprising fun to push to get to 100%

3. All COD games. I loved the first modern warfare but after that I always got this feeling that I was playing laser tag with weak rewards that left me underwhelmed and uninterested in grinding for content.
Fallout games are good
  Haven't played it in a while, but it's good, and I am betting it would be great to beat or fully explore.
[Image: giphy.gif]

Another day on the Jaguars Message Board...
Welcome to Jacksonville:  "We don't deal with carnival folk."




Reply

#64

(09-24-2018, 02:28 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(09-23-2018, 10:55 PM)JagsorDie Wrote: 1. Fallout 3/ skyrim because technically there is not a end game so there is no beating them.

2. Fallout 3/ skyrim because Bethesda just gets me lol. Really though, they were awesome games and even after more hours then I care to reveal invested in both I can still play and find things I have never seen in each.

Edit: I didn't beat them I misread op #2. But those would still be my picks because even after the main storyline is over there is still so much content to explore. Also worth mentioning, assassin creed black sails was surprising fun to push to get to 100%

3. All COD games. I loved the first modern warfare but after that I always got this feeling that I was playing laser tag with weak rewards that left me underwhelmed and uninterested in grinding for content.
Fallout games are good
  Haven't played it in a while, but it's good, and I am betting it would be great to beat or fully explore.
FO3 is one of my favorites of all time. Not as many politics as new vegas but so deep that you can replay making different decisions and experience a completely different game. Bethesda really nailed that and the elder scrolls series.
Reply

#65

(09-25-2018, 11:39 AM)JagsorDie Wrote:
(09-24-2018, 02:28 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Fallout games are good
  Haven't played it in a while, but it's good, and I am betting it would be great to beat or fully explore.
FO3 is one of my favorites of all time. Not as many politics as new vegas but so deep that you can replay making different decisions and experience a completely different game. Bethesda really nailed that and the elder scrolls series.

I'm really looking forward to Fallout 76. Should be interesting as it's set so close to the actual war.

Also, can Bethesda please make me an open world DBZ game? Please.
Reply

#66

(09-25-2018, 04:09 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 11:39 AM)JagsorDie Wrote: FO3 is one of my favorites of all time. Not as many politics as new vegas but so deep that you can replay making different decisions and experience a completely different game. Bethesda really nailed that and the elder scrolls series.

I'm really looking forward to Fallout 76. Should be interesting as it's set so close to the actual war.

Also, can Bethesda please make me an open world DBZ game? Please.
DBZ would be amazing.

 My Understanding of how 76 was going to be was basically a fallout version of elder scrolls online. Which is kind of disappointing.
Reply

#67

(09-26-2018, 09:47 AM)JagsorDie Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 04:09 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: I'm really looking forward to Fallout 76. Should be interesting as it's set so close to the actual war.

Also, can Bethesda please make me an open world DBZ game? Please.
DBZ would be amazing.

 My Understanding of how 76 was going to be was basically a fallout version of elder scrolls online. Which is kind of disappointing.

Could be interesting. Coop has been missing from Fallout IMO. We'll see how it actually works. I'll still probably buy it.
Reply

#68

I am currently in the process of beating Bloodborne. This game is hard as balls.
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIM9bZmkezB9B4qD2qAtT...IGQHCZIPuA]
Reply

#69

(07-13-2018, 01:13 PM)pirkster Wrote: I liked the old system better, too as far as being able to scout individuals in more detail.

What I do like about this version is that it does a good job of creating a value board as organizations do in real life, which I think is the real strength of the draft simulation.

I set up my scouting by first putting every player of need position on my draft board (rounds 1-7 projected players only.)  Then, for about the first 10 weeks of the season or so, I get the full (three level) report on the players who fall where my first three round selections fall in the draft (regardless if they are those need players on my board or not.)  Then, I work what's on my needs/draft board from highest to lowest round.  Rarely do I get through a season with more than 2-3 guys in the seventh I wanted to scout but ran out of points.  I use the "draft board" tab to keep track of the guys I want to scout, then remove them from the board after I get their grade.  That's the only way I use that tab - I use the "scouted" sort to actually draft, and the "draft board" sort only to keep track of scouting.  That's how I keep it organized.

A few observations and other strategies I use:

I never, ever take players with a red score.

When it's my selection, I look and select only players I've scouted by viewing the scouted tab and not the available tab.  I never select a guy I haven't scouted, unless I get to the seventh and I have no scouted players left on the board.  I prefer to trade out than select a player I haven't scouted.  I only select sight unseen if I can't trade out, since it's likely a player I'll have to cut anyway.

So many times I've seen an absolute wasteland of talent between early/mid second round through the third round.  Again, I won't take anyone scoring red regardless of whether it's the correct round score.  I will trade out before reaching down a round.  I will only reach when I can't trade.

Many times I've seen a FB be a top 10 talent, which you can pick up in the 5th round or later.

I play 4-3, so if the crop of LE and DE are not good - I overdraft 3-4 rush OLBs.  They typically make good ROLBs, MLBs, or LOLBs even if they don't fit well at RE or LE.

CBs are typically trash if you don't draft them high, and if they aren't playmakers, man to man, or balanced.  I can't recall a run support CB grading well or being anything good.  Otherwise, only depth.

You can find real superstar FS and SS in the later rounds.  I think I've drafted a superstar in about every round at these positions.

Depending on your offense, you can find great HB backups or potential starters in late rounds.  You may have to adjust the playbook for certain types to use them best.

If I have a player I know will be a staple for a long time, I sign them to a 7 year deal.  Then, I plan on replacing them prior to the final year (unless a QB, or K/P or situational where replacement might be difficult and I want to hold on for just a couple more years.)  Most players are done around age 30.  QBs, OL, and K/P may get a few more but not many.  I trade players in their final year rather than let them expire or re-sign for a short deal.  That helps your cap and keeps your drafts amazing.  That's also how I'm unable to trade sometimes - I hit the limit and the game denies further trades/picks because I've accumulated too many.  If I don't get a trade offer, I let them expire/walk.

As in real life, TE/FB (and other positions - CB/S, LB/DE) can be interchangeable depending on the player's talent and skillset.  You can even get by filling a hole temporarily if your draft wasn't good, then move them back a year later.  That also keeps you from cutting decent players by evening out the players across positions.

I use the roster auto-reorder feature to take a look at possible reassignments.  Sometimes an interior player may be better on the outside, an vice versa... or may be tackles need to change sides.  A bad draft also might call for a player to change positions to upgrade a starter or strengthen weak depth.  Though, if it makes the other position weak, I just start them out of position and leave their natural position alone.

I prefer players that match my scheme.  Pocket passing/strong arm QB only, best RB I can find (may change running style to fit the player style), fast/possession WRs.  Zone blocking linemen typically don't grade high except interior.  On defense mostly the prototype and balanced players grade best and work best for me.  Though, I've found sometimes the balanced players can sometimes end up being masters of none and need attribute bumps in key area's I'm looking for as strengths.  For FS, if not a playmaker I prefer zone FS and run SS.

(Emphasis added)

I had to return to this post because of a recent development I had playing the game.

Ordinarily, I avoid the red scores, too.

However, in a most recent draft, my entire draft board had been taken and I was on the clock at the bottom of the 5th round.

There was a receiver projected to an early 3rd round grade, but who, after scouting had a red score of a 5th round grade. 

When I looked, he had the fastest 40 time of all of the receivers, with a 4.27, so I drafted him.

Taking him at the bottom of the 5th made him a "good pick" in terms of overall value, as determined by the game.

Trying him out in preseason was amazing.  His 4.27 40 speed translated into a 96 speed rating, which made him the fastest receiver on the Jaguars roster-two faster than Chark, who has a 94 speed rating. 

He has been unstoppable in preseason-even getting deep separation on go routes-so much so I am looking to trade away or cut Marqise Lee.
[Image: giphy.gif]

Another day on the Jaguars Message Board...
Welcome to Jacksonville:  "We don't deal with carnival folk."




Reply

#70
(This post was last modified: 12-17-2019, 03:35 PM by pirkster.)

(06-03-2019, 07:26 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(07-13-2018, 01:13 PM)pirkster Wrote: I liked the old system better, too as far as being able to scout individuals in more detail.

What I do like about this version is that it does a good job of creating a value board as organizations do in real life, which I think is the real strength of the draft simulation.

I set up my scouting by first putting every player of need position on my draft board (rounds 1-7 projected players only.)  Then, for about the first 10 weeks of the season or so, I get the full (three level) report on the players who fall where my first three round selections fall in the draft (regardless if they are those need players on my board or not.)  Then, I work what's on my needs/draft board from highest to lowest round.  Rarely do I get through a season with more than 2-3 guys in the seventh I wanted to scout but ran out of points.  I use the "draft board" tab to keep track of the guys I want to scout, then remove them from the board after I get their grade.  That's the only way I use that tab - I use the "scouted" sort to actually draft, and the "draft board" sort only to keep track of scouting.  That's how I keep it organized.

A few observations and other strategies I use:

I never, ever take players with a red score.

When it's my selection, I look and select only players I've scouted by viewing the scouted tab and not the available tab.  I never select a guy I haven't scouted, unless I get to the seventh and I have no scouted players left on the board.  I prefer to trade out than select a player I haven't scouted.  I only select sight unseen if I can't trade out, since it's likely a player I'll have to cut anyway.

So many times I've seen an absolute wasteland of talent between early/mid second round through the third round.  Again, I won't take anyone scoring red regardless of whether it's the correct round score.  I will trade out before reaching down a round.  I will only reach when I can't trade.

Many times I've seen a FB be a top 10 talent, which you can pick up in the 5th round or later.

I play 4-3, so if the crop of LE and DE are not good - I overdraft 3-4 rush OLBs.  They typically make good ROLBs, MLBs, or LOLBs even if they don't fit well at RE or LE.

CBs are typically trash if you don't draft them high, and if they aren't playmakers, man to man, or balanced.  I can't recall a run support CB grading well or being anything good.  Otherwise, only depth.

You can find real superstar FS and SS in the later rounds.  I think I've drafted a superstar in about every round at these positions.

Depending on your offense, you can find great HB backups or potential starters in late rounds.  You may have to adjust the playbook for certain types to use them best.

If I have a player I know will be a staple for a long time, I sign them to a 7 year deal.  Then, I plan on replacing them prior to the final year (unless a QB, or K/P or situational where replacement might be difficult and I want to hold on for just a couple more years.)  Most players are done around age 30.  QBs, OL, and K/P may get a few more but not many.  I trade players in their final year rather than let them expire or re-sign for a short deal.  That helps your cap and keeps your drafts amazing.  That's also how I'm unable to trade sometimes - I hit the limit and the game denies further trades/picks because I've accumulated too many.  If I don't get a trade offer, I let them expire/walk.

As in real life, TE/FB (and other positions - CB/S, LB/DE) can be interchangeable depending on the player's talent and skillset.  You can even get by filling a hole temporarily if your draft wasn't good, then move them back a year later.  That also keeps you from cutting decent players by evening out the players across positions.

I use the roster auto-reorder feature to take a look at possible reassignments.  Sometimes an interior player may be better on the outside, an vice versa... or may be tackles need to change sides.  A bad draft also might call for a player to change positions to upgrade a starter or strengthen weak depth.  Though, if it makes the other position weak, I just start them out of position and leave their natural position alone.

I prefer players that match my scheme.  Pocket passing/strong arm QB only, best RB I can find (may change running style to fit the player style), fast/possession WRs.  Zone blocking linemen typically don't grade high except interior.  On defense mostly the prototype and balanced players grade best and work best for me.  Though, I've found sometimes the balanced players can sometimes end up being masters of none and need attribute bumps in key area's I'm looking for as strengths.  For FS, if not a playmaker I prefer zone FS and run SS.

(Emphasis added)

I had to return to this post because of a recent development I had playing the game.

Ordinarily, I avoid the red scores, too.

However, in a most recent draft, my entire draft board had been taken and I was on the clock at the bottom of the 5th round.

There was a receiver projected to an early 3rd round grade, but who, after scouting had a red score of a 5th round grade. 

When I looked, he had the fastest 40 time of all of the receivers, with a 4.27, so I drafted him.

Taking him at the bottom of the 5th made him a "good pick" in terms of overall value, as determined by the game.

Trying him out in preseason was amazing.  His 4.27 40 speed translated into a 96 speed rating, which made him the fastest receiver on the Jaguars roster-two faster than Chark, who has a 94 speed rating. 

He has been unstoppable in preseason-even getting deep separation on go routes-so much so I am looking to trade away or cut Marqise Lee.

**Note: these comments apply to Madden 20, where some of the comments above by me were from the previous year's version**

Oh, yes you certainly get good value out of a red score player!

The drawback is that these players will show very slow progression over their career.  So, they can make a great short term fit.

One thing I've noticed is that it's much harder to plug in non-scheme fit guys than in the past.  A fantastic player out of position won't progress as well as they should if they aren't a fit.  So, I look for crossover players who are initially non fit who change to a fit player after you change their position.

A couple examples... an agility fit on the OL can change to another agility fit (I usually move RT into the interior line that are also agility fit in my playbook.)  Also in my playbook, LE and DT are both run stoppers, so they can swap positions without losing scheme fit.  Ditto all three LB positions, a draft light in any of these positions I can move players in these silos around to strengthen a weak draft/roster without losing scheme fit.  I recently moved a non-fit physical WR to vertical threat TE to make a non-fit player a scheme fit at the new position.

I did notice that scheme fit players seem to raise their play and the team's play on Madden 20 moreso, and is a bigger impact more than changing playbooks up than in past years.  If you're rebuilding a team or insist on a certain playbook - I find fitting players to scheme is paramount to anything else.  Sure, if you build up a superstar into the 90s they will fit anything well enough.  But season over season you'll have to replace them eventually with a fit.  So, if you prefer a playbook as a coach your first priority is to swap out non fits for fits as soon as possible. The biggest advantage to scheme fit is that they get more progression/training boost, where non fits get zero coaching boost bonus above normal training.

On the player replacement topic, I've noticed that unfortunately you don't get the value you used to in trade, even for top players.  Which, I guess makes it more realistic than in the past.  I'm a heavy trader when players get to their third contract (usually around age 30, 31 unless it's a QB I don't think I can immediately replace and/or they are not losing rating due to age yet, QBs can go to 34 or so) and I've run into situations where I hit the pick limit.  Your trades get rejected if you reach the yearly maximum.  I typically have the max number of picks every other year.  At the end of drafts, I find sometimes my board is empty of draft worthy players by the sixth round.  Trading sixth and seventh round players can sometimes get you fifth rounders in future drafts.  So, I tend to hit my max often - which limits me when I get into the season and prefer to trade starters looking for an expensive extension who have a backup starter in waiting behind them.  I unfortunately have to let them walk at the end of season if I'm at the max number of draft picks.  Sometimes I'll have to cut a good old player in cutdowns so a player I just drafted will get experience and develop faster - works out in the long run for that player's advanced progression.
"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."
Reply

#71

(12-17-2019, 03:23 PM)pirkster Wrote:
(06-03-2019, 07:26 PM)Bullseye Wrote: (Emphasis added)

I had to return to this post because of a recent development I had playing the game.

Ordinarily, I avoid the red scores, too.

However, in a most recent draft, my entire draft board had been taken and I was on the clock at the bottom of the 5th round.

There was a receiver projected to an early 3rd round grade, but who, after scouting had a red score of a 5th round grade. 

When I looked, he had the fastest 40 time of all of the receivers, with a 4.27, so I drafted him.

Taking him at the bottom of the 5th made him a "good pick" in terms of overall value, as determined by the game.

Trying him out in preseason was amazing.  His 4.27 40 speed translated into a 96 speed rating, which made him the fastest receiver on the Jaguars roster-two faster than Chark, who has a 94 speed rating. 

He has been unstoppable in preseason-even getting deep separation on go routes-so much so I am looking to trade away or cut Marqise Lee.

**Note: these comments apply to Madden 20, where some of the comments above by me were from the previous year's version**

Oh, yes you certainly get good value out of a red score player!

The drawback is that these players will show very slow progression over their career.  So, they can make a great short term fit.

One thing I've noticed is that it's much harder to plug in non-scheme fit guys than in the past.  A fantastic player out of position won't progress as well as they should if they aren't a fit.  So, I look for crossover players who are initially non fit who change to a fit player after you change their position.

A couple examples... an agility fit on the OL can change to another agility fit (I usually move RT into the interior line that are also agility fit in my playbook.)  Also in my playbook, LE and DT are both run stoppers, so they can swap positions without losing scheme fit.  Ditto all three LB positions, a draft light in any of these positions I can move players in these silos around to strengthen a weak draft/roster without losing scheme fit.  I recently moved a non-fit physical WR to vertical threat TE to make a non-fit player a scheme fit at the new position.

I did notice that scheme fit players seem to raise their play and the team's play on Madden 20 moreso, and is a bigger impact more than changing playbooks up than in past years.  If you're rebuilding a team or insist on a certain playbook - I find fitting players to scheme is paramount to anything else.  Sure, if you build up a superstar into the 90s they will fit anything well enough.  But season over season you'll have to replace them eventually with a fit.  So, if you prefer a playbook as a coach your first priority is to swap out non fits for fits as soon as possible.  The biggest advantage to scheme fit is that they get more progression/training boost, where non fits get zero coaching boost bonus above normal training.

On the player replacement topic, I've noticed that unfortunately you don't get the value you used to in trade, even for top players.  Which, I guess makes it more realistic than in the past.  I'm a heavy trader when players get to their third contract (usually around age 30, 31 unless it's a QB I don't think I can immediately replace and/or they are not losing rating due to age yet, QBs can go to 34 or so) and I've run into situations where I hit the pick limit.  Your trades get rejected if you reach the yearly maximum.  I typically have the max number of picks every other year.  At the end of drafts, I find sometimes my board is empty of draft worthy players by the sixth round.  Trading sixth and seventh round players can sometimes get you fifth rounders in future drafts.  So, I tend to hit my max often - which limits me when I get into the season and prefer to trade starters looking for an expensive extension who have a backup starter in waiting behind them.  I unfortunately have to let them walk at the end of season if I'm at the max number of draft picks.  Sometimes I'll have to cut a good old player in cutdowns so a player I just drafted will get experience and develop faster - works out in the long run for that player's advanced progression.

As in real life, with me running the Jaguars draft, I have found drafting a credible, game changing TE to be a tough find.  Usually, the TEs I am in a position to draft have high ratings, but pedestrian speed.  If I stick to scheme fit players, they typically make little to no impact.  The one time there was a potential impact TE, there was an impact player along the line that was better.

Most recently, I found a solution.  In the drafts, there is no shortage of big receivers in the 3rd rounds range around 6-4, 235 lbs or so.  I scouted them, found one that ran at a sub 4.5 range and converted him to TE.  I made him my 2nd TE behind Oliver, who developed nicely over 3 seasons.  It opened a whole new world.  Aspects of the offense I never used-targets on specific plays, or actual plays themselves-now became available.  While he needed a little development, he has been nothing but a matchup nightmare for defenses.  Not ten games into the season, he has already scored 13 TDs, including four in his first reg season game.  For the first time using Jaguars personnel red zone passing has been a viable option.  The flat in the stick plays is now an option in the red zone, as is play action.  Red zone or not, the 3 TE set jet plays are unstoppable without a dominant pass rusher exploiting my tackles.

Of all of the possible position switches you could do, I would highly recommend the big receiver to TE.  Conversely, in all of my years of playing Madden games, I have never seen a pass rushing OLB make a successful transition to putting his hand on the ground.
[Image: giphy.gif]

Another day on the Jaguars Message Board...
Welcome to Jacksonville:  "We don't deal with carnival folk."




Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!