User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Suggestions > CPU Team on Steroids; Beating Human Teams in Playoffs
Page:
 
ProfessionalKop
Gangstalicious
offline
Link
 
You should never ever lose to a cpu team. 0 excuse to lose to one.
 
FastPanzer
offline
Link
 
Well don't worry Bro, I'm following your sage wisdom to "gut the team".

 
Rocdog21
Sancho
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Novus
Morals of the story:- If your team loses a game by 100, you don't have a good team. You have a bad team.


Or you have zero cares.
 
Rocdog21
Sancho
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by FastPanzer
Some pretty negative comments made without context. For context this same team of mine came within 20 points in a playoff game last season with a top notch Human team that finished runner up to a Run Only QB Human. I'm not sure how a team that comes within 20 points of a top notch runner-up one season nose-dives to horrible the next season. I guess it can or did happen..

As to the dots versus scheme. Yes, the scheme may be off. I don't think that the dots are sub-quality. Most are rated 3 to 4 levels higher than their absolutes, and that's because I've built up key skills to near or over 100 organically (e.g. DT,101 for strength, WR 99 organic for speed, 103 for passing for the main QB), etc. And they all have custom equipment on top of the organic skills levels.

A question I have is around how you have special insight into CPU teams. Are there tips posted somewhere that we all have access to and I've missed them? Could it also be that GLB has juiced them just a little too much? Do you know for sure that is not the case?

As an example of GLB odd programming, GLB has let the run only QBs teams run wild now for 10+ seasons with little programming adjustments. Do you think that the Wishbone could come back and survive in the NFL, mirroring the strategies and tactics of the run only teams in the GLB? Or has the game programming been set in a fashion in GLB that favors the teams with run only QBs and very few Human Ds can stop it....hmmmmm. Is there anything realistic about strong 220 lb WRs pancaking strong 250 lb LBs to clear a pathway for the QB. Would you consider that tactically realistic?

Could the CPU team phenomena be similar in that GLB is fine with it regardless of the consequences? What if the CPU team doesn't just elevate to an equivalent level as the Human team but also adjusts its skills to the optimal set to beat the Human team? If so, how do you know and your source? I'd love to read about it and learn. Thx!

As to your tone, it's extremely negative and personally attacking, sad to say. I hope that in the rest of your life people treat you with civility when they are candid. If your communication on this forum is any indication then I regret that it's not happening. You deserve better! It's just a game..not life...peace.


I think you're taking some of the comments out of context...and if they seem rude, it's probably in response to your original post which came off a little passive aggressive imo.

Either way Guppy made valid points and is 100% correct on all of them. There probably is a link about CPU dots adjusting to their opponents, but it was probably made back 6-7 years ago when Bort actually cared about the game. Most of us who have been playing long enough just know this.

 
Rocdog21
Sancho
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Texas49er
I agree, my human team got beat by dots, maybe ownership is doing it on purpose so people will switch to GLB 2, the game was so awesome, now it's just a time killer, I got one season left in me then I'm out, tired of getting beat by inferior teams and never getting a response from "support"


This guy must play Madden or any other game on beginner, so he's not used to losing
 
FastPanzer
offline
Link
 
I've already acknowledged I'm gutting the team. Why the pilling on?

As to the passive aggressive reflection, my original suggestion was intended for a moderator or anyone else in an official position with GLB to see the issue through a customer's eyes. Has anyone who has commented on my post been a moderator or in an official business role with GLB? BTW, no one has addressed the running QB issue that I brought up. Why?

Whether I"m a poor, OK or good team manager (or dot builder), having non-paying AI run teams whipping human run teams, and not providing the knowledge based resources (e.g. postings on the forum for how to scout AI teams that have no bars, no relative skill levels, etc) isn't healthy for training/orienting human managers up the ranks. I guess that I could study individual games (and respect those that do) and I just don't have the time.

The lack of posted learning resources is more of a business issue in the game business model to me.

BTW, and all the posters on here seem to know this, the game is shrinking in attendance not growing. If you are interested in helping the health of this game and expanding its usage then coming on to this forum and brow-beating managers who make suggestions is not the way to help people get good at and play the game more.

Food for thought and this is my last post. Nothing like having three or four guys pile one when you've already admitted defeat. Classy..

 
Guppy, Inc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by FastPanzer


As an example of GLB odd programming, GLB has let the run only QBs teams run wild now for 10+ seasons with little programming adjustments. Do you think that the Wishbone could come back and survive in the NFL, mirroring the strategies and tactics of the run only teams in the GLB? Or has the game programming been set in a fashion in GLB that favors the teams with run only QBs and very few Human Ds can stop it....hmmmmm. Is there anything realistic about strong 220 lb WRs pancaking strong 250 lb LBs to clear a pathway for the QB. Would you consider that tactically realistic?


run only teams have been around since the very beginning. defenses cannot stop them because defensive players need to be able to play against both the run and pass. so at the lower levels, run only teams are almost impossible to stop. yes, it's realistic for a 220 wr with hands of stone to learn how to block a a 250 guy. happens all the time in the nfl.
 
Guppy, Inc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by FastPanzer
my original suggestion was intended for a moderator or anyone else in an official position with GLB to see the issue through a customer's eyes.


pretty sure that no one associated with glb, only one left really doing anything at all is DD, has looked at this forum in years. it's pretty well know that the game has been abandoned for any changes.

Originally posted by FastPanzer

The lack of posted learning resources is more of a business issue in the game business model to me.


there's literally an entire forum for this, not to mention all the private ones. http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum_thread_list.pl?forum_id=19&team_id=0&page=1
Edited by Guppy, Inc on Apr 16, 2019 11:02:10
 
Rocdog21
Sancho
offline
Link
 
You seem pretty emotional for a guy who said "this is a game and not life" I'm not piling anything on really, and kept it fairly civil.

If I remember right agents were complaining about CPU dots being TOO easy, so Bort made them a bit harder to beat. You're not the only one to lose to a CPU team, and probably won't be the last.

imo RQB teams are fairly easy to beat unless they are in Casual...but still with the right builds it can be done in higher levels. This team won 80 games in a row or something, then ended up losing against a team/teams who know what they are doing.
https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/team.pl?season=72&team_id=1341

All of "the other posters" are well aware the game is shrinking, but there are plenty of agents out there willing to help new players. There are help and suggestion forums.

Food for thought, maybe there wouldn't be any "brow-beating" if you came off a little less harsh. Take some accountability instead of blaming this game. There are plenty of agents willing to help if asked, on top of plenty of forums for this .
 
Sonic
offline
Link
 
Sucks to be eliminated by a CPU in survivor, especially when the team beaten has a positive win record.
 
FastPanzer
offline
Link
 
Adios and enjoy game.
 
Guppy, Inc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Sonic
Sucks to be eliminated by a CPU in survivor, especially when the team beaten has a positive win record.


lol, i literally win most of my survivors by betting on the cpu teams. altho, yeah, i hate when a full human team cant beat the cpu team, especially when the human team dominates the 1st game, then gets beat the 2nd. but i would have taken the cpu team in this scenario because of the 2 previous wins.
 
Novus
offline
Link
 
FastPanzer, in your original post, you were mad about losing to a CPU team, and you blamed the loss on Bort not paying attention to how improperly strong CPU dots are, and you pretty strongly implied it's some sort of unfixed bug.

It's not a bug. CPUs are at the strength Bort intended them to be, because years ago he tinkered with making CPU dots stronger and weaker until he found what most people thought was a good balance, and he stopped there. If you have a bad team and use a bad game plan, you can lose to a CPU team. Literally working as intended.

So, sorry, but you didn't lose due to an unfixed bug due to Bort's inattention to the game. You lost because you overestimated how good your dots are and underestimated how much effort you would need to beat a CPU team THAT HAD ALREADY BEATEN YOU TWICE THIS SEASON. You really shouldn't have been surprised that the the third game was also a loss. You should've seen this coming. You didn't. That's your fault, not Bort's.

If you're bad at playing a game, it's usually not the game's fault.
 
FastPanzer
offline
Link
 
Well Novus, that's not a relationship building post.. I've had teams that took runners up, and I've had some that weren't good (e.g. 7 and 9). I've had some MVP dots (casual level to be clear). I don't see it as "bad at playing a game". I see it as not as good as some others (possibly you) and not having the time to do proper scouting and getting the scheme fine-tuned. I tried a heavy passing offense this time and couldn't get it in synch.

I have a G dot right now on a championship Global/Pro team and he's been renewed for next season. My guess is that it's less about my dot's quality and more about the schemes I'm running (just not working). I'm not happy about it. And since I pay to play this game, I have a right to question a programming decision (CPUs) by the ownership. Maybe the blame of failure is misallocated, to your point, and I have a right to raise it while acknowledging that some of schemes weren't working well.

I've coached hundreds of people between business, athletics (high school and middle school) and the US Army. And usually it's most effective to try to find something positive to say about a person's performance amidst an intense criticism. Did I miss the olive branch?

John

 
Rocdog21
Sancho
offline
Link
 
I would say this isn't intense criticism...this is constructive criticism.

You're in casual and there is a reason why it's called casual! You don't need to scout. It's as easy as a click of a button to change up your game plan from game to game.

You have been playing this game for 10 years now (probably off and on). It's no ones fault but your own for losing to a cpu team 3 times this season. It's not Bort's fault you don't follow the forums, ask for help or advice. It's also not his fault you chose to run the same game plan all season even after losing. Once again, take some accountability.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.