Warrior General Games

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1230921&pbp_id=8605777

I've seen this happen before, but it's still going on.

Are there people actually fixing bugs right now? Just curious.

This one is kind of odd. Looks like another sweep play but yeah no idea why the WR would all the way inside away from what should be his assigned target, the corner, and goes to the unblocked LOLB.

Only guess is he did a threat analysis and found the LOLB could intercept the HB and perhaps the FB would cover the corner, and it looked like he was heading there, but then he changed his mind and went for the DE or something in that pile.

Could be a buggy decision making on that one.

This is another known bug, that just simply hasn't been fixed.

I appreciate you trying to help, but both of the bugs that I posted have been confirmed, and have been going on for a very long time.

There's no reason for the WR to go all the way to the center of the field to try and pick up a defender who is nowhere near the HB. Do you have any more examples of this happening? It does look very out of place to me, I'd just like to make sure it's not a one time issue.

Here is my take on this from a OC and DC perspective.

From my DC experience, I have seen this for at least two seasons. If I put CB1 or CB2 in a deep setting in the DAI I can force the WR to look for a better blocking target. The OPs example does not show this but the sim has always lined CB2 slightly farther off of WR2 than CB1 is from WR1. So the same theory seems to apply in the example above. It just does not happen as often imo. Like I said the behavior can be forced by setting the CB to deep and cover man w/o move.

From an OC perspective. I have noticed that CBs have been getting harder and harder to block. I think the pancake adjustments for the O line and D line have had some unintended effects on the other blockers and defenders in the game. FBs, TEs, and WRs seem to have a much harder time getting their hands on anybody this season other than a NT that revcaked the RG that is. Then the FB gets too much of the NT in most cases. The point is that CBs simply don't hit the dirt this season unless they are missing a tackle.

Nevermind

Can someone explain to me why we need more than one example? Is the logic that if it's only seen once then it's not a problem? Or is it to make GLBs job of fixing bugs easier for them? Either way it's not user-friendly policy. It happened, why do we need to see that it happens more than once to deem it a bug? Excuse me for my programming ignorance, but shouldn't each game simmed provide a coded "readout" that could be used to determine what happened in this specific instance? Or perhaps we could just have a test server, sophisticated enough to recreate this situation at will and find out what happened. It's like every tiny, little problem is the biggest deal in the world to fix. It stuff like this that keep people like me from spending any more $$ on this game.

Not to mention, this was a known bug BEFORE.

Isn't there some kind of record somewhere, that this was/is a known bug?

Why do I need to find more examples, when I've seen this issue in the bugs forum multiple times?

Gotta say, this new bug mod system doesn't seem to be working very well.

This has not been listed or flagged as a bug. At least under the new system. I'll check the archive tomorrow when I have more time, but it hasn't been flagged as such or dealt with by this current, apparently inferior, Bugs Modding Team.

So, in order to find out and fix what may or may not have gone wrong, we will need more examples to present to the testers to find the proper fix if there is one. I'm sorry that doesn't fit what you wish would happen, but that's the way things work.

In my opinion however, the WR seems to take a route to what that WR perceives as the bigger threat to the HB. Irl, that bigger threat is the LB, but we all know how well CB's stop the run in GLB now.

Originally posted by VolBrian
Originally posted by Bukowski


Gotta say, this new bug mod system doesn't seem to be working very well.

Sorry to disappoint. That does sound like the beginning of a suggestion though. Expand on that thought and you would do far more help than any of your current posts.


I've seen this issue before and will try to find the previous threads tomorrow when I have more time to look through the threads from the previous mod system. Right now I'm hanging out with family for Father's Day. I do hope a little free time for volunteers fits into your new Bugs Mod system....

Those smart ass answers will do everyone a lot of good though.

I pay for this game. You get paid flex to get on here. If you don't like it, don't do it.

There are bugs here that have been going on for multiple seasons, with people saying that we need more examples. It is a ridiculous response, which is why i say this system isn't working out very well. You have 20 guys running around here, no one knows what the other one is doing, while each of them have a different excuse as to why something isn't working like it should.

Originally posted by Bukowski
Originally posted by VolBrian

Originally posted by Bukowski



Gotta say, this new bug mod system doesn't seem to be working very well.

Sorry to disappoint. That does sound like the beginning of a suggestion though. Expand on that thought and you would do far more help than any of your current posts.


I've seen this issue before and will try to find the previous threads tomorrow when I have more time to look through the threads from the previous mod system. Right now I'm hanging out with family for Father's Day. I do hope a little free time for volunteers fits into your new Bugs Mod system....

Those smart ass answers will do everyone a lot of good though.

I pay for this game. You get paid flex to get on here. If you don't like it, don't do it.

There are bugs here that have been going on for multiple seasons, with people saying that we need more examples. It is a ridiculous response, which is why i say this system isn't working out very well. You have 20 guys running around here, no one knows what the other one is doing, while each of them have a different excuse as to why something isn't working like it should.

I never said I don't like it. I like it a lot actually. And you're completely right, I shouldn't respond to your bait with such glib remarks. For that I apologize. As you can see, I have edited that post to reflect what I really meant to say.

Either way, the current Mod system is working very well actually. We all know what each other is doing. We have a process given to us by the admins that we are executing very well. Unfortunately, that process does not resolve this issue immediately for you. For that I also apologize, but that's how it works. The CS mods look and gather as many examples as we can to send to QA. QA reviews the examples and our determination. QA decides how it should be tested and makes recommendations to the testers. The testers test the issue and make a recommendation on a possible fix to the admins. The admins fix the issue.

Originally posted by mwindle
Can someone explain to me why we need more than one example? Is the logic that if it's only seen once then it's not a problem? Or is it to make GLBs job of fixing bugs easier for them? Either way it's not user-friendly policy. It happened, why do we need to see that it happens more than once to deem it a bug? Excuse me for my programming ignorance, but shouldn't each game simmed provide a coded "readout" that could be used to determine what happened in this specific instance? Or perhaps we could just have a test server, sophisticated enough to recreate this situation at will and find out what happened. It's like every tiny, little problem is the biggest deal in the world to fix. It stuff like this that keep people like me from spending any more $$ on this game.



I'm not an engineer myself, but I've worked for Internet/technical companies my entire life, and every one I have worked for has always required more than one example of an issue. They need to show that the issue is reproducible in order to fix it. Why is it that way? I don't have any idea, LOL. But, it's not unusual or an especially "not user-friendly policy", it's just the way it is.

And, as a note, I totally understand the frustration in seeing apparent bugs not getting fixed, or reoccurring, or new bugs popping up. There have been statements along the lines of "this one has been around for several seasons" and "the new bugs system doesn't seem to be working very well". I've been a player since the beginning of season two, and the reason I wanted to become a bugs moderator is to hopefully make the game better. Please remember, this new system has barely been around a month. I think that all that any of us are asking is, give it some time. We have no control over a bug that may have existed prior to the new system, or been around for multiple seasons. I've seen a lot of issues resolved just since I started, and I've seen and received a number of happy messages thanking for the help.

Now, to hopefully get things back on track, I would agree that based on the one replay, we would need some more examples. The Corner also goes towards the inside of the line. It almost looks like everybody is reading off of the fullback, who moves up into the line. Was this a insider Rush? It looks like the penetration from the nose tackle might have made the halfback read that he had to go outside?

Originally posted by blaslo
I'm not an engineer myself, but I've worked for Internet/technical companies my entire life, and every one I have worked for has always required more than one example of an issue. They need to show that the issue is reproducible in order to fix it. Why is it that way? I don't have any idea, LOL. But, it's not unusual or an especially "not user-friendly policy", it's just the way it is.





In an IT or normal work environment end users rarely provide proof of their issues. They generally describe a problem from memory and lack the vocabulary and understanding to explain the issue. So most techs will shine them on or say let me know if it happens again. If somebody brings you proof such as a link that can be looked at over and over again there is no hiding from the issue.

Originally posted by AngryDragon


In an IT or normal work environment end users rarely provide proof of their issues. They generally describe a problem from memory and lack the vocabulary and understanding to explain the issue. So most techs will shine them on or say let me know if it happens again. If somebody brings you proof such as a link that can be looked at over and over again there is no hiding from the issue.

not sure exactly what that does to get things back on track or further the specific issue, but thanks for the input

its a crackback