Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
We've talked about tweaking the DC tactics page, so it's not a NGTH thing. Not sure there is only 2 solutions.

Currently the distance is based on the play. Blitzes are supposed to bring pressure and so most blitzes are "Short", etc. Making each play have short/medium/long would mean that short/medium/long doesn't really mean anything.

But yeah, we aren't opposed to changing the Defensive tactics, will talk more about with Bort/Cdog.

Pls rather fix broken game mechanics before you waste time on stuff that only needs to be "learned". Priorities should really be else where even tho this is a topic.

Originally posted by peeti
Pls rather fix broken game mechanics before you waste time on stuff that only needs to be "learned". Priorities should really be else where even tho this is a topic.

Disagree on this. New user retention probably is driven more by whether a new team owner can understand how to call defenses/offenses he wants to call as opposed to whether the Spread QB rollouts are overly susceptible to 5-2 defenses.

Originally posted by peeti
Pls rather fix broken game mechanics before you waste time on stuff that only needs to be "learned". Priorities should really be else where even tho this is a topic.

I don't disagree but it's always a time and effort vs. reward calculation in software.

Simply copying 4-4 ZEB Short Pass/Run and making 4-4 ZEB Medium Pass/Run and 4-4 ZEB Long Pass/Run is an exceedingly quick and high value proposition, even if it has to be done 100 or 200 times.

Fixing the code logic of how players move and react during a play is much more difficult. High value for sure, but much more investment of time and effort.

It's my suggestion is to simply copy plays and create more tags. It's a quick, easy and permanent solution that works.

Originally posted by FairForever
Disagree on this. New user retention probably is driven more by whether a new team owner can understand how to call defenses/offenses he wants to call as opposed to whether the Spread QB rollouts are overly susceptible to 5-2 defenses.

Absolutely agree. the lack of focus on new player retention is horrendous, and the excuses made are even worse.

Originally posted by Xars
Rob's idea has merit but in my view, that's a coding challenge. Simply copying existing plays so that they can be called in multiple Distance situations is an easy workaround of the drop-down idea.


How is it a coding challenge? I assume the plays table looks something like:

playID |formationID | playName | WRCt | playType | PlayDistance | Blitz | Zone

Sample data would be:

1 | 4-4 | Zero Edge Blitz | 1-2 | Pass/Run | Short | True | False

Simply add a playbook override table that contains all the data in the main table but include playbookID. Add a left join playbook override and use that to determine which version of the play to use. The UI would need a minor tweak to allow the play tagging but I don't imagine that would be too difficult.

Originally posted by FairForever
Disagree on this. New user retention probably is driven more by whether a new team owner can understand how to call defenses/offenses he wants to call as opposed to whether the Spread QB rollouts are overly susceptible to 5-2 defenses.

Lol...you Talk about sth that others complain about. What I want is fixing play designs where the original Design has nothing to do with real football.

And no...you were also new, you learned how to do it and now you can gameplan. You cant learn to make plays better. You can learn to avoid plays, wow.

So you think New Users like Instant TFLs? Getting nothing out of the offense is not less depressing for New Users. That is a stupid assumption.

Also...the biggest Problem I see with the game is NOT the Lack of New Users to stay around. It's the fact that a fuckload of veteran Agents quit the game. You Arent playing this game for a long time but believe me that much.

And they dont quit because of the defense interface. So Start to look farer than only your own feet before Posting such stuff

Rob.'s idea of self-tagging the Distance on plays is BRILLIANT by the way.

It would keep the size of the playbook compact and yet create a multitude of options.

It's really a great idea. It would take some coding (maybe a lot, dunno) and to me that's the only drawback. Because then we get into peeti's argument that play logic needs to be fixed (which also takes coding time).

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
How is it a coding challenge? I assume the plays table looks something like:

playID |formationID | playName | WRCt | playType | PlayDistance | Blitz | Zone

Sample data would be:

1 | 4-4 | Zero Edge Blitz | 1-2 | Pass/Run | Short | True | False

Simply add a playbook override table that contains all the data in the main table but include playbookID. Add a left join playbook override and use that to determine which version of the play to use. The UI would need a minor tweak to allow the play tagging but I don't imagine that would be too difficult.

I defer to someone with coding expertise.

Originally posted by peeti
Also...the biggest Problem I see with the game is NOT the Lack of New Users to stay around. It's the fact that a fuckload of veteran Agents quit the game. You Arent playing this game for a long time but believe me that much.

There will be attrition in any game. You grow a game (or any business) through a combination of customer loyalty (avoid attrition) and add new customers. Failure to add new customers in a game like this will actually lead to attrition because things become stale without fresh ideas.

Originally posted by peeti
Lol...you Talk about sth that others complain about. What I want is fixing play designs where the original Design has nothing to do with real football.

And no...you were also new, you learned how to do it and now you can gameplan. You cant learn to make plays better. You can learn to avoid plays, wow.

So you think New Users like Instant TFLs? Getting nothing out of the offense is not less depressing for New Users. That is a stupid assumption.

Also...the biggest Problem I see with the game is NOT the Lack of New Users to stay around. It's the fact that a fuckload of veteran Agents quit the game. You Arent playing this game for a long time but believe me that much.

And they dont quit because of the defense interface. So Start to look farer than only your own feet before Posting such stuff

All games are subject to losing users over time due to numerous factors, the life of an online game depends on retaining new users to reduce the strain from old users leaving. Its silly to think that a game can depend on retaining its current users without developing a new user base.

Originally posted by Xars
I don't disagree but it's always a time and effort vs. reward calculation in software.

Simply copying 4-4 ZEB Short Pass/Run and making 4-4 ZEB Medium Pass/Run and 4-4 ZEB Long Pass/Run is an exceedingly quick and high value proposition, even if it has to be done 100 or 200 times.

Fixing the code logic of how players move and react during a play is much more difficult. High value for sure, but much more investment of time and effort.

It's my suggestion is to simply copy plays and create more tags. It's a quick, easy and permanent solution that works.

True...But they arent just doing that. If they would, then I wouldnt mind at all. But they would waste Tons of time thinking about WHAT of the possible solutions would be be best, test it, etc... so it's an itterative process anyway that takes much time.

Originally posted by Jagat0r
Absolutely agree. the lack of focus on new player retention is horrendous, and the excuses made are even worse.

You are pathetic and everyone was able to see it. You arent making things better with such stuff

Originally posted by Jagat0r
All games are subject to losing users over time due to numerous factors, the life of an online game depends on retaining new users to reduce the strain from old users leaving. Its silly to think that a game can depend on retaining its current users without developing a new user base.

It's just as stupid to only thing about New Users and ignore things that appeal to veteran Users and make them stay. So whats your point?

Originally posted by peeti
You are pathetic and everyone was able to see it. You arent making things better with such stuff

Your stance that your issues are the biggest an only problems in the game are pathetic. Your opinion is one of many and holds no more weight than my own Fair's or the new guy that made a free player yesterday. I still stand firm on everything I have posted in these forums as being my true and honest beliefs, and if you dont like them I will tell you where you can stuff those opinions.

Originally posted by Xars
I defer to someone with coding expertise.

Early in GLB Classic I offered to help out with database design. Bort said no.

Its probably a little more complicated than I made it seem, but I couldn't imagine it being too much worse. That would depend on implementation.

Originally posted by Xars
Rob.'s idea of self-tagging the Distance on plays is BRILLIANT by the way.

It would keep the size of the playbook compact and yet create a multitude of options.

It's really a great idea. It would take some coding (maybe a lot, dunno) and to me that's the only drawback. Because then we get into peeti's argument that play logic needs to be fixed (which also takes coding time).



http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5232511

This has been suggested at least 5 times already. Nothing new. No idea why they never considered it. Maybe it's a too big step towards beeing less casual. But the idea itself is old. Still great tho