Originally posted by thehazyone
....Again, every run was shut down. OK, now I'm a bit worried so I move it to long/pass focus. Teams SHOULD be able to run against this type of defense. It was actually worse than short/run as there was 141 carries for 151 yards....
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=649
137 carries for 267 yards. A little better but still way under where it should be for a Long/Pass focus defense.
Maybe I need to input a whole set of rosters but I was assuming that the base teams were meant to be relatively even against one another and should provide a balanced, realistic game. Regardless, I see signs that show that the run game is way underpowered now and I can only foresee the large number of complaints that will arise when RB's are averaging 2 yards per carry. If I can have my team playing long/pass focus every down, the game will be easy.
I'd list individual plays but there's so many of them I don't know where to start.
Am I overreacting here or do I have a right to be worried?
First off, i appreciate the work the testers do despite the many ethical issues that arise from the whole situation, what will follow in this post is (mostly) not about the ethics behind the test server and is not designed to spark discussion about said ethics.
That said, I just got done watching all of the first half and a lot of the 2nd half of the game linked above.
Every single play i watched the defense was on run focus except for one which was balanced. every play. Most of the plays were on long coverage, but not all, there were some on short and medium distance. The coverage distance dosent play a big factor anyway since it only affects the safeties (on run focus that still leaves 7 players in the box right up on the line).
I would expect that a team would average about 2 yards a carry against an about equal defense that focuses on the run every play and would go as far as to say i think that is how the sim should work.
Please dont allow the misinformation quoted above to influence any changes to the run game. Had i actually seen a pass focused D holding a run game like that, i would of agreed with the sentiment of the op somewhat, not the suggested fix method, but definitley the sentiment of "to hard to run." However, the D is on run focus, and run focus absolutely should contain the run.
This brings up a few other issues. Issues with the testers, test server, and how it is being used.
Obviously, a lot of power comes with being a tester, i.e. the oppurtunity to find exploits and see how new changes work, respect from the GLB community who view testers as people who know a lot about the game, and most importantly the ability to bring what you learn from the TS directly to Borts attention while making high profile threads about it in the TS Discussion fourm.
Here is the issue - How does a tester not know the difference between run and pass focus? Any half decent DC can tell you in 1 second if a play is a run, balanced or pass focused. Any half decent DC can also tell you that the diffrence between coverage distance and play focus. Yet, the tester who started this thread seemed to miss the fact that 99% of the plays in the game he linked as "long/pass" were run focused. Did he actually watch the game? or did he just look at the numbers? Maybe he put the wrong link? this is a problem.
Here is the problem - He made a high profile thread claiming that the run now dosent work even if the D only looks for the pass. The information in the thread was wrong and has now misguided many GLB members and possibly caused unwarranted concern/action on the part of the person who codes the game.
Back to the issue - No tester should be making this kind of mistake
and then make a thread about it, for whatever reason it may have occurred, it shouldn't happen. It still brings up the question, Why? Why did this mistake happen? (Im sorry hazy, this isnt an attack on you, you just kinda put yourself in the line of fire here) Was it because of ineptness? Did the tester not know the difference between run and pass focus? I'd have to say it would be a poor reflection on all testers the whole test server program and GLB in general if this was the case. Maybe the tester does know the difference in focuses, but that would
have to mean he didnt watch the game. Again, dosent reflect real well on the way the test server is being run, just looking at the box score dosent tell the whole story. Next, (i hate to go down this road but this post wouldnt be complete without it, im not accusing
anyone of
anything im just trying to make a point, i cant stress enough that the following is in no way an actual accusation, just trying to make a point), considering the background of the tester, you have to wonder about ulterior motives. Anyone who pays attention knows that the tester who started this thred is a big fan of the run game and his awsome pro championship team relys heavily on the run. Is it possible that a tester tried to pull a fast one and use their influence to create a sentiment among a group of users and the creator of the game in order to have changes in the game go the way they would perfer? Its not out of the question until someone can come up with a better explination of how we are on page 6 and just now its getting pointed out that the D in above replay is in fact on run focus.
If this thread is so off base, is it that much of a stretch to wonder how many other "findings" on the test server are just as misinformed?
This thread shows that there are major holes in and problems with - the testing process - the knowledge, methods, motives, and influence of the testers - tester selection - the process by which the test server creates change.
A lot of people (customers, owners, staff) have a lot of time and money riding on this game developing into a complete, succesful, reliable, enjoyable, fair, and FINISHED product. Those who have invested their time, money, lives into this game should without a doubt expect nothing less then near perfection from the people who have the most influence and control over the direction and state of this game.
If you wanna flame me fine, but to save space and time my stock answer to any flamer is fuck you.
If you wanna discuss legitimately this im all ears and more then happy and willing to talk about and reasonably discuss what i typed.
