Warrior General Games

Originally posted by bhall43
What isn't sensible about it? Its a bonus to vision, confidence, and tackling (maybe that's a little wierd) not something game breaking. You act like this is the end of your offense. Which I find pretty lol.

It is not sensible since if the D can key on a play (vision) and act on it better, they it should be confused when you run the play they didn't expected. (The CBs cheats toward a hook route he anticipates only to get blown by a stop N go)

I never said it is the end of the world, or my offense. I actually compared it to the sim calling 2 random plays a game.

If the RPP will not be noticeable, then I obviously don't care. If it will cost me a single interception in an attempted comeback I will be pissed (not that I will ever be sure it was the RPP).

The only part missing in this thread (and similar thread) is the why. There is no logic in the change, so why have it ?

Originally posted by haole
Originally posted by tragula


The only part missing in this thread (and similar thread) is the why. There is no logic in the change, so why have it ?


Originally posted by Catch22

We deemed it wasn't acting as enough of a deterrent to keep teams from calling only a small number of plays a game. GLB's vision is a game where teams actually use more then a small number of plays in the game.


Instead of changing the penalty for small playbook they changed the definition of what a small playbook is.

(Catch's 'why' doesn't correlate well with the change)

Originally posted by tragula
Instead of changing the penalty for small playbook they changed the definition of what a small playbook is.

(Catch's 'why' doesn't correlate well with the change)

I don't disagree with the change itself per se (although I do hope there's at least some consideration in the future of a "smart" RPP system) nor the rationale behind it ... but it certainly would've been preferable to expand the offensive playbook before or at the same time as increasing the RPP, since a lot of people feel constrained by the existing playbook already

When I was in the army (true story here) someone broke the lock of a warehouse and got away with 3000$ worth of food items.
After a short inquiry (nobody found the thief) it was deiced that the key to the warehouse will be kept by an officer instead of the night kitchen sargent.





have fun,

Rant is over, I am going to sleep.

ohh...people are still acting like this is a penalty to their offense? weird,...

Originally posted by Catch22
The RPP was already at 10 with the window starting at 13-15. We deemed it wasn't acting as enough of a deterrent to keep teams from calling only a small number of plays a game. GLB's vision is a game where teams actually use more then a small number of plays in the game.


the problem is, 75% of the plays suck ass

should have added more plays to go along with this imo

Originally posted by Catch22
The RPP was already at 10 with the window starting at 13-15. We deemed it wasn't acting as enough of a deterrent to keep teams from calling only a small number of plays a game. GLB's vision is a game where teams actually use more then a small number of plays in the game.

The RPP isn't going to be modified. You can debate and argue it all you want as long as it's civil but we have no reason to change the change. We have reasons for making this change and we're going to stick by them.

Do you think we'll ever get more offensive plays?

Sure we will. Just don't know the timeline.

Originally posted by Catch22
Sure we will. Just don't know the timeline.

Word. Just think it's along the lines of the same vision as you expressed earlier, using larger playbooks.

I know they were on the project list last offseason, but didn't make it.

Originally posted by mikeandbrooke07
the problem is, 75% of the plays suck ass

should have added more plays to go along with this imo

More like 95% OC's just suck ass.

Originally posted by Catch22
The RPP was already at 10 with the window starting at 13-15. We deemed it wasn't acting as enough of a deterrent to keep teams from calling only a small number of plays a game. GLB's vision is a game where teams actually use more then a small number of plays in the game.

The RPP isn't going to be modified. You can debate and argue it all you want as long as it's civil but we have no reason to change the change. We have reasons for making this change and we're going to stick by them.

This is good for the game as a whole. Who wants to watch a 100 point blowout where the winning team runs 1 play to death all game?

More offensive plays is a better solution.

Originally posted by AngryDragon
More offensive plays is a better solution.

Is it hard to create more plays?

Originally posted by Landrys Legacy
Is it hard to create more plays?

each play has to be vigorously tested to make sure there's an exploit blitz that will work on it