This post is coherent, accurate and relevant! You are an enigma, Wolph.
Its the same though if the opponent goes LI and you played 3-2 zone....I think the coach would switch the defense after the first quarter if it was that obvious it wasn't working.
True, it is similar. some "rock, paper, scissors" tactically planning has always been the case, thats just the reality of this game. you can blank the lineup and let the GE do the heavy lifting in player selection, usually with good result. tactically, would a blank lineup, maybe even blank tactic, solve this? Is that what we want? I'm not sure on either of those.
I think they might just consider removing defensive reassignment and allow us to train any skill at any position. That would be a much better solution I think.
The latter has been my preference since the beginning. You could still have incentive to train a player out of position. Maybe you get a X% boost to passing training your center at PG instead of C.
Allowing some switches in role in zones might even them out in usability with MtM, making the game more interesting than LI MtM.
I agree in wanting to see more deviation in which tactics* are more successful. As always it comes back to the players and training. You can't play some tactics as well as other based on players available and training is the biggest hurdle to the evolution of player skill-sets. There has been several changes to encourage this evolution in training and player skills without much success.
*tactics, not metagaming gimmicks.
Last edited by brian at 12/14/2011 5:19:24 AM"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt