Warrior General Games

Hell, I'm the king of low stamina builds because there was little incentive to ever have it. This hurts my players as much as any but it's the right thing to do.

Level 58, 22 stamina (it was 18 lol) - http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1152016
Level 58, 30 stamina - http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1152032
Level 58, 33 stamina - http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1152039
Level 58, 25 stamina - http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1152052

Eh, you get the point. You can view all my builds and see that I've virtually ignored stamina and a lot of my players have been very productive.

Originally posted by Catch22
I hate to tell you Hooter - that thread wasn't a revolt. It was 5 people arguing back and forth with one another.

Point #1 - tester names are no longer anonymous - Q & A guys started out doing it that way but I asked them to change that about two weeks ago.

Point #2 - I read EVERY comment posted in the test server discussion threads. If there is a legitimate issue or concern it's noted and taken into consideration.

That being said, I do understand that not everyone reads the forums, so I'm going to start making a weekly announcement listing all the changes we are discussing/testing and linking the appropriate threads so people know where to go if they want to offer input.

As for your last point. This is a business, not a democracy. As I stated in the other thread, one of the problems in the past this game had was trying to cater to everybody and adapting the game on whims instead of going forward with the vision the game developer had in mind for his game. While we value input and suggestions, when all is said and done, GLB is going to make changes they feel are best for the game. This change is one that we (and let me make it clear that ultimately a decision like this is Bort's, if he doesn't like something he's not going to add it) feel is best for the game.

Catch,

Well, that thread was mostly consisted of 5 or so Agents battling it back and forth, there are numerous threads on the Main Forum complaining about the Stamina/Confidence Changes.

Also, that doesn't include the Team Forums that are complaining about it.

Point 1: Thank you for that.

Point 2: I hate to say it, but it's now your job to read all of the posts on the Test Server Discussion Forum?

The Weekly Announcement would be the single greatest thing you can do. As for these forums, if I had realized how important they may be, I'll spend more time on here, but it's nearly impossible to keep up with all of the posts that go on. I like to read the important parts and skip the moronic posts that are bound to happen on 10+ Page Threads. Once they get past 3 or 4 Pages, I don't bother trying to read the entire thread.

I've always respected you and what you've done so far, before before you became an Admin, and you know that I'm not an outspoken guy on here, but when I see something that just seems to take the fun out of this game, I'll speak up.

And yes, I'm partly biased because I am an Extreme Cap Builder too, so I can't honestly sit here and just comment without judgment. But once again, from the Snippets that was posted here, it appeared that a Tester came up with the idea that Stamina and Confidence needed an overhaul and the Admins went with it.

Also, the lack of information on just how much Stamina or Confidence was changed is bothersome too. If the old "48" rule of thumb is now the new "60", why not just let us know?

Thanks.

Stamina and confidence weren't changed per se - the effect of Energy and Morale on a players performance (which are of course directly related to stamina and confidence) were increased. Again, I won't give exact numbers but will use a hypothetical.

Before the effect of Energy might have had a maximum effect of 25% (this isn't actually what it is, using a number as an example) on a player's attributes. This was adjusted somewhere between 15-25% (so using my hypothetical, the maximum effect would be 28.75-31.25%, so really an addition of 3.75-6.25% of an effect). Morale has a lower impact then energy as to the impact it would have on a player's attributes. Before it might have been something along the lines of 8% (again, just an example) maximum effect on a player's attributes. This was adjusted somewhere between 30-60% (so using my hypothetical, the maximum effect would now be 10.4%-12.8%, an addition of 2.4-4.8%).

That's about as clearly as I can explain how Stamina and Confidence were changed.

Originally posted by Sal Basss
If this was true and a known factor, shouldn't there have been some tests run and documented on the first page of this discussion thread to support that it's possible for a player to get by with 20 stamina? All I saw is a tester's opinion on one of the very first lines of this thread, so I assumed that was a hypothetical made-up situation and had no actual existence in the game.
That's why you should ask before getting upset. There was a huge thread in GLB main discussing that TE, I just don't happen to remember his name. Within the thread, more and more people came forward about players they have with almost no stamina who nevertheless were able to dominate. It was definitely a problem and needed to be addressed, although it's fair to argue that the "correction" was too large or too sudden.


Originally posted by HULK
Why not fix it by having every player on the field for a play lose the same ammount of stamina on that play? Simple and effective.
That's simple, but I don't really like it. I proposed an energy model where the distance traveled drain would be left alone since that was already significant in the old system, but increase the energy drain from other actions such as breaking tackles, making tackles, firing SAs, etc. It's more complicated than what you suggested, but also more realistic and appropriate than having a guy lose the same amount of energy holding an extra point as he would throwing a pass. Unfortunately I'm not a tester because I'm too mean, and therefore my proposal went ignored.


Edit:
I'm also greatly concerned about a rash of mass-turnover games this preseason. I've seen more 5+ fumble or interception games in the last couple of days than I saw in the last two seasons combined. Unfortunately I warned about precisely this result, not only in the discussion about these changes, but also over a year ago when I proposed a suggestion on how to change the code for morale penalties. Instead of simply stacking flat amounts from confidence-damaging results, the current system allows one to compound the next, quickly and irreversibly leading to these morale cascades where ridiculous, unrealistic results become unavoidable. By having these penalties calculated in a percentage format instead of flat values, no amount of confidence can save you if you're unlucky enough to hit morale-damaging events in sequence, which is why even good builds can have these absurd 5+ turnover games.

A) If players are going to lose stamina based on their actions (which they should) - have players way behind a play save stamina by stopping chasing plays if they drop x yards behind it, on INTs have D players stop blocking when whoever they are blocking can't make the play.

B) Catch can you explain to me why when I look at the after game summaries of 6 games (2 different pro teams) then Offense end-game morale is always pretty bad while the D is always really good, win or lose? Seems like the O is getting more than it's share of morale loss...

Actually, all players on the field should lose stamina at the same rate, with the stamina loss of each play being derived from the total length of the play.

The more I think about it, if a WR runs a deep streak and a Tackle bounces around with a DE, they're doing different stuff, but they're each expending energy for the same amount of time. And the WR probably trains to run routes, and the OT trains to block, and they probably lose roughly the same amount of energy.

If it was me, I would make it something like this:

1 second on the field = loss of 1 breath
1 second OFF the field = gain of .5 breath

Something simple like that as a baseline, and then stamina and playing style (relaxed/normal/hard) acting as modifiers on it.

Something like playing style is a modifier on the burn rate, so relaxed burns .75 breath, normal burns 1, and hard burns 1.25 breath for each second on the field.

And stamina would modify the regen rate. Maybe 40 stamina equals regaining at a rate of .5 breath per second off the field, where 60 stamina = .75 and 20 stamina = .25.

Something along those lines would make sense to me anyways.

Originally posted by HULK
Actually, all players on the field should lose stamina at the same rate, with the stamina loss of each play being derived from the total length of the play.

The more I think about it, if a WR runs a deep streak and a Tackle bounces around with a DE, they're doing different stuff, but they're each expending energy for the same amount of time. And the WR probably trains to run routes, and the OT trains to block, and they probably lose roughly the same amount of energy.

If it was me, I would make it something like this:

1 second on the field = loss of 1 breath
1 second OFF the field = gain of .5 breath

Something simple like that as a baseline, and then stamina and playing style (relaxed/normal/hard) acting as modifiers on it.

Something like playing style is a modifier on the burn rate, so relaxed burns .75 breath, normal burns 1, and hard burns 1.25 breath for each second on the field.

And stamina would modify the regen rate. Maybe 40 stamina equals regaining at a rate of .5 breath per second off the field, where 60 stamina = .75 and 20 stamina = .25.

Something along those lines would make sense to me anyways.

This....have the amount of Stam / Conf be reflective of its generation........Everyone would add to where it needs to be if they knew that it directly affected their time on the field.....and their performance...Make the reporting of this to the players more instructive....so they can easily see the connection.

Originally posted by HULK
Actually, all players on the field should lose stamina at the same rate, with the stamina loss of each play being derived from the total length of the play.



I don't agree with this. Generally you will see most OL play all game with very little substitution. Offensive players that carry the ball or run a long way will almost always come of the game for a rest.

In general, the defense will expend more energy because they don't know where the ball is going and must pursue the play at full speed until it's over. The offense knows where the ball is going so maybe WRs don't run as hard on a run play up the middle. The OL don't run down the field after the play has passed them by.

Heavier players use more energy to move around than lighter players. Players with more agility use less energy. I think to paint a broad stroke like this would not be realistic.

I liked the changes and I was upset that people who built extreme builds ignoring secondaries whined and got it changed. My HB flourished when they changed it.

Thread locked by moderator.