Warrior General Games

Hey guys,

hadnt been on much on the weekend and I dont really know if this still bothers ppl or not. At least it bothers me, so I want to come up with a 3-step plan to balnce things out a bit.

Why do I do this? Because I HATE MO spamming and its features for a single D-play and because Q rollout seems still to be a killer play compared to all other outside rushes. OK, rushing is weaker, now. But wasnt the plan to address one single abused play?^^

However, here we go:


FIRST: Adjust/revert to some degree all changes made to blocking and defenders.

I personally think that this has been a bit too much. I dislike those supermanlike LBs a bit. Harder open-field blocking was necessary, but not by mking the WRs run past the CBs. So what would I do? Maybe meet at the half. Look what numbers you had pre-change and what you have now, and just try to go with the middle of it. Maybe bad idea but oh well.


SECOND: Let the HB (or FB) make a weakside or LOS block rather than a lead block on QB Rollout!

Seriously...the only reason this play was so op was because of the number of blockers. Just make one of thos blocks a less usefull block and profit. We have several of thos kind of blocks on many runs, so just code one in here and let the D make plays. Pretty confident that this would hit the run enough to not be a nobrainer anymore.

THIRD: Switch the blitzing LBs on MO from the OLBs to the ILBs!

No waypoints would be needed to stop letting this play such a great pass rush play while beeing superb at run stopping. The ILBs would blitz in the middle and could make plays if they are good blitzers, but at least no more edgle blitzed on this play. The playart would also be at least be more accurate.


You can either disagree or not, but I kinda like the ideas. Just wanted to come up with at least an idea to balance stuff rather than just complain.
Does this belong in Suggestions? Maybe...I think its better in Main, tho.

Feel free to hate on me.


Greetz, peeti

Well, the second idea is kind of silly.

Just straight up making a player do something useless to take themselves out of the play doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by Corndog
Well, the second idea is kind of silly.

Just straight up making a player do something useless to take themselves out of the play doesn't make any sense.

Mhhh, wouldnt be the first time a blocker does that.

Look at "Strong I - Pitch Weak". Thats just an example...the are more of that. Its not really useless, its just some kind of different and maybe less useful, yes.

As said...we alrady have many plays with those blocks, so why not. He doesnt have to do a weak side block. Maybe just pick up the DT that the pulling Linemen let go? I dunno... Just get rid of one lead blocker

counter proposal
1) revert the code
2) cause QBs to take significantly enhanced morale and fatigue losses from being tackled while running the ball to simulate the potential for injury increase the risk part of the risk/reward equation
3) only allow GL formations in the red zone
4) test it out in scrims and tweak till it is optimal
5) implement
6) work on improving AI

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
counter proposal
1) revert the code
2) cause QBs to take significantly enhanced morale and fatigue losses from being tackled while running the ball to simulate the potential for injury increase the risk part of the risk/reward equation
3) only allow GL formations in the red zone
4) test it out in scrims and tweak till it is optimal
5) implement
6) work on improving AI

Why is everyone thinking that limiting it to certain situations would help at all? RQB teams will just spam it then in those situations, wow. problem fixed? lol

No thx...



Corny...You havent said anything to the other 2 things and also you one post was kinda meh, imo. I dont need you to reply, but pls consider it at least. Even if the QB thing wont be touched, the MO solution would help a lot :/

Originally posted by peeti
Why is everyone thinking that limiting it to certain situations would help at all? RQB teams will just spam it then in those situations, wow. problem fixed? lol

No thx...



Corny...You havent said anything to the other 2 things and also you one post was kinda meh, imo. I dont need you to reply, but pls consider it at least. Even if the QB thing wont be touched, the MO solution would help a lot :/

Would you consider QB rollout a good play on 3rd and Goal from the one yard line? It's got what, a 40-50% TFL rate or worse?

I don't think people would spam it at all. It's value is it's homerun capability, not it's high % success rate at gaining a single yard.

Originally posted by Galithor
Would you consider QB rollout a good play on 3rd and Goal from the one yard line? It's got what, a 40-50% TFL rate or worse?

I don't think people would spam it at all. It's value is it's homerun capability, not it's high % success rate at gaining a single yard.

Well, yes? If I built my team around, ofc.

PPL also talked about shord-yardage situations, which is even more of a dumb idea...Its really just my opininion, but just take away one lead blocker and this shit is balanced

because if you make it so that you clobber the QB if you tackle him it will limit the QB runs, the other restriction was to limit the abuse of the formation for all runs peeti

those aren't either or steps

Limiting GL to GL situations is a bad idea and has been rejected by corndog so people should stop suggesting it. A broken play that isn't used as often is still broken.

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
because if you make it so that you clobber the QB if you tackle him it will limit the QB runs, the other restriction was to limit the abuse of the formation for all runs peeti

those aren't either or steps

That "suggestion" was lame when it was suggested, and still is.

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
counter proposal
1) revert the code
2) cause QBs to take significantly enhanced morale and fatigue losses from being tackled while running the ball to simulate the potential for injury increase the risk part of the risk/reward equation
3) only allow GL formations in the red zone
4) test it out in scrims and tweak till it is optimal
5) implement
6) work on improving AI

Counter counter proposal.

Make it so that a high percentage of running QBs get caught for dog fighting and miss entire seasons at a time.

Originally posted by sieg76
Counter counter proposal.

Make it so that a high percentage of running QBs get caught for dog fighting and miss entire seasons at a time.

Me Gusta

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
counter proposal
1) revert the code
2) cause QBs to take significantly enhanced morale and fatigue losses from being tackled while running the ball to simulate the potential for injury increase the risk part of the risk/reward equation
3) only allow GL formations in the red zone
4) test it out in scrims and tweak till it is optimal
5) implement
6) work on improving AI

Both limiting GL to RZ and the fatigue ideas are absolutely silly. Why should the QB acquire bigger morale and fatigue losses than any other player on the field? That makes entirely no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by Galithor
Would you consider QB rollout a good play on 3rd and Goal from the one yard line? It's got what, a 40-50% TFL rate or worse?

I don't think people would spam it at all. It's value is it's homerun capability, not it's high % success rate at gaining a single yard.

Why even have GL if all you can use it from is the 1 yard line? Just remove the fucking play if that is the case ffs.

really bhall? then why don't teams run their QB more now? because they get the crap beaten out of them more than a half back or full back does right? because they aren't padded up the same and they aren't physically built to withstand the impact right?

sounds like a damage issue to me and all GLB2 has is morale or fatigue to simulate that

Corndog - I've never been anything but civil and constructive towards you ever. if you don't like the proposal then fine, I'm proposing a way to simulate injury risk in a game without injury and in a way which doesn't require mass changes to the sim overall.

the approach you took was counter to the kind of software practices we use in my industry, but I'm not the one flaming you over pancakes etc - I tried to be constructive

I assume you'd like me to keep paying you 50 bucks a season to play this game so I'm baffled why you'd just be an ass like that. This is a business right? you want customers? I don't really understand the business model of being an ass for no reason really. I'm probably not going to renew my team and most of my players (maybe not all) at this point just because it's not clear to me that the cost/benefit works out and I don't have a good idea where the game may be going. Maybe you figure that means I don't rate civility.

look i'm happy to withdraw my suggestion, it was just an idea that didn't require mass coding I thought and would allow for some more testing.

If you think the game is working the way you want then you should say so outright and be done with it. You've opened pandora's box by starting up the nerf wagon, that isn't my fault. But you set the precedent that if you let the playerbase whine about a perceived problem (QB sweeps) that you'll make a change to appease them.