Warrior General Games

With new players coming in it is time to make the defensive system not suck. After all this time people still are having trouble figuring out the currently way overly complicated system.

I don't think we need more tags, we need zero tags. We need to get rid of the defensive tactic page as well.

What we need is a 12 slot per formation playbook covering each down and distance situation plus prevent. You just pick the play you want hit a plus button and you're set. A distance setting would be at the top of the page.

This is as simple and easy as it gets and a huge time saver. You want a short blitz and a medium play but you can't do that because against a run formation you called short plays, now you can. You can just call plays without lining up the stars. It will just work and is what they should of had all along.

Why would anyone down vote this it is so quick and simple?

I generally have strong defenses and I gotta say the Defensive Tactics in this game just doesn't cut it for me. I hate it, tbh. I go out of my way to try and make a good D by going around the system, and some of the other DC I know do this too. I dunno if your idea is better or Xars' idea, but something has to be done to fix it. It's not easy to pick up on when your new and even if you do understand it, there are flaws that prevent it from working right anyways.

This idea turns GLB2 into a simple game.

Simple games are fine.

Complex games are fine.

I prefer GLB2 as a complex game that works.

Implement my suggestions and Defensive options explode.

This idea limits choices and flexibility.

That's why it's been to down voted by multiple people.


EDIT on 4.17.2016 at 5:37am

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I was thinking only one play per situation, really the biggest problem with this.

I couldn't reply since this got locked, but if you come back and read this Osiris, this was my biggest issue with your idea. Defenses would be built on one play per setting. I like the idea of multiple plays per setting. That's what computers are really good for - random number generation. Humans have tendencies. Game systems that run on probability allow for humans to program away that tendency.

So in my view, while what you are suggesting would work better than the current system, I think it moves away from the end goal of what the game should be. I believe my revamp moves the game where it should be going. To me it's why I'd rather not have your suggestion implemented because I fear it would guarantee that my suggested revamp never happens.

nvm

Originally posted by Xars
This idea turns GLB2 into a simple game.

Simple games are fine.

Complex games are fine.

I prefer GLB2 as a complex game that works.

Implement my suggestions and Defensive options explode.

This idea limits choices and flexibility.

That's why it's been to down voted by multiple people.


Your system does the same thing but adds stuff that is not needed in any way. Sure if we pick our own tag that works but clutters up what could be a simple system for no reason what so ever. We don't need tags period. I could make the DAI and packages for this system in about 20 minutes in GLB1. The slots in the playbook would be no more than a one play package plugged right into a universal DAI. Everything is plug and play. In GLB1 I almost never have to open my AI and calling plays is so much simpler, just put the play I want into the package. Here I have to line up the stars just to call a third down and long blitz. This way is way more noob friendly than the current system and even way more noob friendly that the pick your own tag suggestion.

What choices does it limit? How is it not flexible? You could call Cover one CB fire on 1st down and ZEB on second and long while not having to even think of what you want to do against a different WR set.

Plug and play.

Why is everyone so in love with tags when they are not needed in any way what so ever?

Seven fucking people think the current system is better than this, do I just not have enough clout, or am I not explaining this properly?

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
Seven fucking people think the current system is better than this, do I just not have enough clout, or am I not explaining this properly?

Maybe you need to explain it better. I gave it a +1 because I think the defensive playbook/tactics needs an overhaul.

Take the 2WR playbook for example.

At the top of the page would be the distance settings. Underneath would look similar to the current defensive playbook with 12 boxes to fill, one for each situation. Here is a rough example I wish I had something more visual. Also an example of a play you might call.

Play box one First Down (Cover 1 CB Fire)

Maybe a cluster of 5 play boxes next for

Second & Very Short (Cover 1 Robber)
Second & Short (Cover 1 Robber)
Second & Medium (Cover 2 Man Under)
Second & Long (Zero Edge Blitz)
Second & Very Long (Zero Edge Blitz)

Below that a cluster of five more play boxes

Third/Fourth & V. Short (Middle Overload)
Third/Fourth & Short (Shallow Sam Blitz)
Third/Fourth & Medium (MLB Cloud)
Third/Fourth & Long (MLB Cloud)
Third/Fourth & V. Long (Zero Edge Blitz)

Lastly two more play boxes

Opp Goal Line Formation (Cover 1 Robber)
Prevent (MLB Cloud)

You fill the 12 boxes and hit the pull down to the next formation. No matching anything you just plug in the play you want when you want. 2WR would have no bearing on 3WR or 2TE. You would hardly have to touch most formations just tweak a few plays from team to team. If you have played a rush heavy team you just copy that playbook and make a few adjustments for the variances between the two teams.

Xars suggestion is fine and if they implement it that would vastly improve things, which isn't hard to do because it is currently terrible. I would just rather see it done like this without all the clutter and extra steps.

I feel like they tried to make the defensive system match the offense and couldn't quite figure it out so they said "f it good enough".

So if you added more than one play per situation then you just control it with play priority?

I actually like this idea and I think if they added this as an option but also kept the current settings for those who don't want to fill out so many boxes it would be good. So current settings would be default but your suggestion would be called "advanced" and it allows people to get into further detail. Seems like a good compromise.

Originally posted by Rob.
So if you added more than one play per situation thend you just control it with play priority?

I was thinking only one play per situation, really the biggest problem with this. If you went with the option of multiple plays than yes the priority would come into play. I was thinking just one play per box to keep things simplistic and clean, but a multiple expandable play box would be even better.

Second & Medium (Cover 2 Man Under*****+Shallow Sam Blitz***)


A great agent of mine messaged me a bit earlier wondering if his blitzing LB doesn't fit my system. I have been having to use CB Fire a lot on first down to stop screens and strong side pitches which makes pass blitzing pretty much useless to me in very other situation. Makes me feel like an ass for wasting his time and money. This system would assure I could call a pass blitz when and where I wanted. Any system that would allow us to open up our playbooks I am all for. Xars and I have both suggested ways to do it.

Originally posted by Rob.
I actually like this idea and I think if they added this as an option but also kept the current settings for those who don't want to fill out so many boxes it would be good. So current settings would be default but your suggestion would be called "advanced" and it allows people to get into further detail. Seems like a good compromise.

It seems like a lot of boxes but it would actually save time. How often do I change my 5WR and GL defense? Almost never. I would rarely touch my 3WR and 4WR defense as well, especially if I could set them up proper. The two dynamic formations 2TE and 2WR I would gladly change a few plays to the plays I actually want rather than to what fits.

Anything for improvement I can dig...Thumbs Up

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
Seven fucking people think the current system is better than this, do I just not have enough clout, or am I not explaining this properly?

You could always create multis like GE and upvote/comment on your own suggestions...