Warrior General Games

serious question, how many new plays and/or formations are currently being tested by our teams of new testers?

it looks like 0 to me

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

Well that is when you should have added this new change,

I honestly don't think this is a big deal for those that don't use auto adjust. Auto adjust, it may be an issue, but Bort could also reprogram auto adjust so that it doesn't run a play more than 7 or 8 times a game, too.

Without it, though, you really shouldn't be able to run a play more than 7-8 times before getting a p significant hit. I'll be the first to agree that we need more plays. For the life of me, I have no clue why we haven't at least given HBs & FBs routes on every pass play yet. That said, there are enough good plays to never have to run any more than 7-8 times a game and you're plenty safe if you stay below 9. I had absolutely nothing to do with this, but I like it. I got sick of seeing the same slant play 15+ times a game...Now, the real ? becomes if it really matters if you do run the same slant 15+ times a game. It was supposed to matter at 20 before, and it really didn't much.

Originally posted by haole
serious question, how many new plays and/or formations are currently being tested by our teams of new testers?

it looks like 0 to me

I believe you are correct

Originally posted by PP
Originally posted by haole

serious question, how many new plays and/or formations are currently being tested by our teams of new testers?

it looks like 0 to me

I believe you are correct

LOL

Originally posted by PP
I have no clue why we haven't at least given HBs & FBs routes on every pass play yet. .

Honestly, we wouldn't even need an opc, or new plays. All we need is the ability to attach the wr hook route, and the flanker drag route to every play so we can at least force d coordinators to respect hb weak and strong out of 3 wr sets.

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.

Agents spend 10 seasons building Dots in various ways trying to get a fraction of a skill point on their competition and you say you don't understand why someone would be upset with giving their opponent a fraction of a skill point to every player on the opponent's team?

Yesterday I had 10 plays cause me to give my opponent and edge. The highest was 8 because I ran a lot more than those 10 plays.

I don't know if this is a problem with "Pride of Authorship" but it defeats forming a strategy. I have flopped a few messages with GLB on the issue and one of the comments amazed me because the arguments given me are self defeated by something earlier in the very same response.

Originally posted by bhall43
More like 95% OC's just suck ass.

hmmm

you're right. i forgot they probably all work in the WL. fuck the minors

Originally posted by Dr. E
Agents spend 10 seasons building Dots in various ways trying to get a fraction of a skill point on their competition and you say you don't understand why someone would be upset with giving their opponent a fraction of a skill point to every player on the opponent's team?

Yesterday I had 10 plays cause me to give my opponent and edge. The highest was 8 because I ran a lot more than those 10 plays.

I don't know if this is a problem with "Pride of Authorship" but it defeats forming a strategy. I have flopped a few messages with GLB on the issue and one of the comments amazed me because the arguments given me are self defeated by something earlier in the very same response.

oh shit...because thats not happening to the other team too right?

You two can keep trying (and failing) to turn this into an OC e-peen measuring contest, but I think the biggest issue with this change -- and the timing of it -- is trying to reconcile these two things:

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.

Originally posted by PP
Originally posted by haole
serious question, how many new plays and/or formations are currently being tested by our teams of new testers?

it looks like 0 to meI believe you are correct

Originally posted by bhall43
oh shit...because thats not happening to the other team too right?

Not the lazy ones. I've seen O AI in which the play is just run or pass, everything else random. I've seen others where packages are huge, 10, 15 or more plays all at a small chance to run, basically the same thing as random. Hell, most offenses have no reason, they just run plays for who knows what reason. Certainly no plan to force some action by the D.

The RPP will hurt the most those with a planned O that has a lot of control into their Offense. Mine for example will do what is working, if it isn't working it changes. When it gets to something that is working it sticks with it and from that point on it will only run a set number of plays. I have probably 30 or 35 plays in the O, but once it finds what is working it will run a small sample, maybe 10 or 12 plays. Isn't that what football is?

Originally posted by haole
You two can keep trying (and failing) to turn this into an OC e-peen measuring contest, but I think the biggest issue with this change -- and the timing of it -- is trying to reconcile these two things:

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.

Originally posted by PP

Originally posted by haole

serious question, how many new plays and/or formations are currently being tested by our teams of new testers?

it looks like 0 to meI believe you are correct





Reconcile it is easy, move the penalty back to 10 and just get harsh there. I find I'm getting as many as 10 repeat play hits a game, but none are above 8 plays.

Originally posted by tragula
The RPP concept is silly. It was introduced to prevent exploits and as such I have no issue with it. But no need to pretend that it a sensible RL logic. (if it was I then It could be used to trick the D).
Completely wrong. NFL offenses rarely use a play more than 4-5 times in a game precisely because defenses react better to it the more that they see it. College offenses use them more often, and high school offenses more often still, but the concept unquestionably has a grounding in real logic.


Also, here's how it should work:
Originally posted by jdbolick
I made a suggestion regarding this idea: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4009445 Basically, GLB needs something to encourage more variation in play-calling, and creating this type of penalty for repetitive play-calling would be very realistic while benefiting the sim. The idea is to give a bonus of "X" to every defender's vision checks each time a play is used that has been called before. "X" would need to be fairly small so that the impact isn't overwhelming early on, and presumably testing could help determine what value of "X" would work best.

The benefit of using something like this instead of penalties kicking in at arbitrary limits (5 plays, 10 plays, etc) is that it provides a subtle but gradually significant effect on the defense, while not preventing the offense from relying on a particular play they feel the defense may be weak against. This type of penalty would also realistically emulate a defender recognizing a play more quickly because he has already seen it that day. Meanwhile I do not believe that it should be tied to personnel, just the play ID itself.

I personally believe the defense should be hit with the same thing. You play the same exact defense against a formation multiple times the offense should be rewarded for using different plays out of that formation the defense is set up against.

I also think Offensive repeat play penalty should be more of an ongoing thing, based on the plays you have run, and not something that is just a constant ticker starting with the first play. If you run the same play 8 times in an entire game but run 32 plays out of the same formation, that means that only 1/4 of the time you run that formation you run the same play. No way Defenses would bite/key in on that specific play each time from then on out.

Instead I presented a system where Each time you run a play it adds to a 'counter' for that play. So for arguments sake say +1. BUT each time you run a play, all the plays that you didn;t run, get their counter reduced by an amount as well. Lets say -0.5. Exception would be plays that are _very_ similar (so this would take a little work building the tables) so, if you focus on say, ONE HOLE through the offensive line for the entire game (running different formations but hitting the same hole) the reduction for these 'similar' plays may only be -0.25.

Then set the threshold on 'repeat plays' at an arbitrary number, so that if you exceed that number (based on game balancing) a penalty starts to kick in. This penalty would be sliding and increase rapidly.

So, if you arbitrarily determined that once a play reach +5 (Basically have to run the play 8 times in 10 plays or 5 times in a row) there is a bonus to the defenses ability to read and react to the play (Bonus to getting off the snap early, Bonus to vision and maybe a slight bonus to speed for the first few tics)
If its +6, the bonus goes up, +7 goes up even higher, etc so that if you somehow got a +10 penalty you have LaVar Arrington Leaping over the O-Line to hit the QB i the backfield just as he snaps the ball.

But, if you mix up the plays and you are running things spread out amongst the available plays, its much harder to ever trigger a repeat play penalty.

With defenses, each time a formation is used, it should add to a counter but there is no REDUCTION in the counter for running a different defense. Once the counter reaches a for game balance arbitrary numer, the QB starts getting a vision check to recognise the formation. IF the QB makes their check there is a slight bonus to the entrire offense to simulate the QB having discussed the play on th sidelines and in the huddle with his players and giving advice to his receivers/backs etc.

Bonus would manifest in maybe a bonus to getting open for receivers, (not catching etc, just getting open) a small break tackle bonus for backs (to help them make it through the first tackle attempt) A bonus to 'Hold Block' or 'Pick up blitz' forthe O-Line etc.

Nothing large, but something large enough to encourage DC's to have to run different formations/DPC plays.

This works out in many ways in the defenses favour because you could have multiple plays from the same dot positions, but the dots do different things, have different assignments and so your defense is more diverse and difficult to scout.

-Then, while you are at it, reduce the number of deflections that result in a catch anyway. (EG, add a more significant vector change to the football when it is touched by the defense before the offense)
-Make the defensive secondary a bit ore effective in multiple coverage situations but make receiving a ball in single coverage a bit easier as long as it is reasonable yardage.
-Make the long balls much harder to consistently throw.
-Put an absolute value cap on all attributes, so that the fastest ANY dot can run is a 3.8 second 40, modify the cap by the 'bulk of a player but don;t put that penalty in say, until about 275 pounds (So linemen never run 3.8 40's) Any attribute value beyond the value required to hit the maximum value cap adds to 'consistency' So if 100 speed = 3.8 40 times, then 120 speed = 3.8 second 40 times and a bonus to rolls using speed so they make them more frequently. So they bleed less speed in cuts, etc. This bonus should scale so that it grows quickly but then drops off quickly as well. So say a +1% up to 115 in an attribute but then the bonus for a 116 is maybe 0.9%, 117 is 0.8% etc until you are only adding 0.1% for each point.
As stated before, this is for all attribute, so there is a maximum Strength limit, maximum agility limit etc.

The best way to test these values is to look at the NFL combines, create 'sims' of the combine tests, and then tweak the attribute system so that the results returned by running a player through the combine is what a player int hat position with that 'build' should be expected to run.

If you did that, receivers getting downfield in crazy short times for long receptions would be reduced.

By putting an absolute value cap on attributes you can TEST interactions better at say.. the Line Interaction, so things can be tweaked and made to work significantly better. So the whole game can be balanced better.

By removing the uncapped attribute scale, you take away the desire to have a focused attribute taken well over 100 as the player wont get better and better, just more consistent. Meaning a more balanced player will still be able to compete and perform against exaggerated builds. The 'exaggerated' build though would still be 'the best' at their particular exaggerated attribute.

Then you can really focus on making the sim work well. Instead of always having to add band-aid tweaks that break other things because someone figures out the next best exploit that pushes an attribute 'over9000' and breaks the sim.