drunk. double post
Edited by cavalier on Sep 24, 2010 11:34:35
Forum > Pro Leagues > Working as Intended
Originally posted by NiborRis
Well, I see this is as the Texas Tech offense with better QB/WRs. So to consider what's broken, let's look at why they rack up 100-120 pts instead of 50-60.
I'm going to take a high-flying game from Tech's last season, vs Kansas State, which they won 66-14. Probably their highest offensive output of the season all around.
39/49 for 554 yards, 8 TDs, 1 INT
Also, they had 26 rushes for 185 yards.
That's 75 plays instead of 100. And they were 67% pass instead of 100% pass.
So at the 11.3 yards per pass play, if they'd thrown 100 pass plays up, but were sacked on 10 so they only got 90 passes off...that would be 1017 yards passing.
The numbers are NOT that far off from reality, on a per play basis, except that GLB has a huge play gap problem and in passing plays it's horribly magnified. And I'd recommend not touching that aspect unless XP gets a complete overhaul (it's been tweaked a bunch but could probably use a full makeover. Doubt we'll see that.)
And because of that, dots have to be in "better condition" than normal humans do just to get the same amount of tired at the end of the game.
And he did have 10 WRs to help keep his WRs fresh against opponents D.
And I bet his D was gassed and demoralized to all hell....just like the Tech D was for most of the Leach era.
It's not optimal, but honestly it's not as "sky is falling" as is being presented. Instead it's the result of being able to create unbalanced gameplans and totally sell out to a single strategy...which is completely unavoidable in this kind of game environment.
..I'd be more worried if he'd won 100-20 over a very good team, but putting up 100 in a loss seems to be exactly what his team is built to do.
You usually write logical comments and generally make sense. But this is extremely off Nibor. Sorry, no disrespect. 200+ is ridiculous any way you look at it. NBA Jam did not win easily like the Texas game you are referring to. So there is no defense for this game when it comes to GLB coding. It is simply embarrassing.
Well, I see this is as the Texas Tech offense with better QB/WRs. So to consider what's broken, let's look at why they rack up 100-120 pts instead of 50-60.
I'm going to take a high-flying game from Tech's last season, vs Kansas State, which they won 66-14. Probably their highest offensive output of the season all around.
39/49 for 554 yards, 8 TDs, 1 INT
Also, they had 26 rushes for 185 yards.
That's 75 plays instead of 100. And they were 67% pass instead of 100% pass.
So at the 11.3 yards per pass play, if they'd thrown 100 pass plays up, but were sacked on 10 so they only got 90 passes off...that would be 1017 yards passing.
The numbers are NOT that far off from reality, on a per play basis, except that GLB has a huge play gap problem and in passing plays it's horribly magnified. And I'd recommend not touching that aspect unless XP gets a complete overhaul (it's been tweaked a bunch but could probably use a full makeover. Doubt we'll see that.)
And because of that, dots have to be in "better condition" than normal humans do just to get the same amount of tired at the end of the game.
And he did have 10 WRs to help keep his WRs fresh against opponents D.
And I bet his D was gassed and demoralized to all hell....just like the Tech D was for most of the Leach era.
It's not optimal, but honestly it's not as "sky is falling" as is being presented. Instead it's the result of being able to create unbalanced gameplans and totally sell out to a single strategy...which is completely unavoidable in this kind of game environment.
..I'd be more worried if he'd won 100-20 over a very good team, but putting up 100 in a loss seems to be exactly what his team is built to do.
You usually write logical comments and generally make sense. But this is extremely off Nibor. Sorry, no disrespect. 200+ is ridiculous any way you look at it. NBA Jam did not win easily like the Texas game you are referring to. So there is no defense for this game when it comes to GLB coding. It is simply embarrassing.
Edited by cavalier on Sep 24, 2010 11:19:19
Ahrens858
offline
offline
Originally posted by Drew Brees
You should know
didnt i DC your team at some point?
You should know
didnt i DC your team at some point?
Ahrens858
offline
offline
http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?season=15&team_id=4431 lol s15
255-0 for 12 games. lulz
255-0 for 12 games. lulz
Drew Brees
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ahrens858
http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?season=15&team_id=4431 lol s15
255-0 for 12 games. lulz
Yea...the minors is worthless now... it's a complete joke and has been for way too many seasons... nothing but CPU and SSB/NonBoosting teams out there..
http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?season=15&team_id=4431 lol s15
255-0 for 12 games. lulz
Yea...the minors is worthless now... it's a complete joke and has been for way too many seasons... nothing but CPU and SSB/NonBoosting teams out there..
Bladnach
offline
offline
also, i hope jam arcade and alpine don't need a points against tiebreaker come week 16
Ahrens858
offline
offline
Originally posted by Drew Brees
Yea...the minors is worthless now... it's a complete joke and has been for way too many seasons... nothing but CPU and SSB/NonBoosting teams out there..
fucking scottish claymores.
Yea...the minors is worthless now... it's a complete joke and has been for way too many seasons... nothing but CPU and SSB/NonBoosting teams out there..
fucking scottish claymores.
PP
offline
offline
Originally posted by Dpride59
Dude, I don't want the MVP, can I turn it down??? I want the week 16 thorn endorsement, ask tooley- that's the goal every season, the MVP is 1 vis 3 conf and +1 to the tree, it's junk compared to thorns piece...
when you started this, ummm, vision, the MVP went to the top dot and the common belief was that it was the prime endorsement. If you didn't consider it in your planning of this O, well, I gave you too much credit, and I don't give you anywhere near as much credit as most
sure, things changed since then, but you didn't know it....Anyway, I'm NOT saying you were doing anything wrong, just that it would have been short sighted not to think of this in the planning stage. Hell, I did for HBs
Dude, I don't want the MVP, can I turn it down??? I want the week 16 thorn endorsement, ask tooley- that's the goal every season, the MVP is 1 vis 3 conf and +1 to the tree, it's junk compared to thorns piece...
when you started this, ummm, vision, the MVP went to the top dot and the common belief was that it was the prime endorsement. If you didn't consider it in your planning of this O, well, I gave you too much credit, and I don't give you anywhere near as much credit as most
sure, things changed since then, but you didn't know it....Anyway, I'm NOT saying you were doing anything wrong, just that it would have been short sighted not to think of this in the planning stage. Hell, I did for HBs
PP
offline
offline
Originally posted by cavalier
You usually write logical comments and generally make sense. But this is extremely off Nibor. Sorry, no disrespect. 200+ is ridiculous any way you look at it. NBA Jam did not win easily like the Texas game you are referring to. So there is no defense for this game when it comes to GLB coding. It is simply embarrassing.
What he said Also, I'm almost as disgusted that Alpine was able to rack up even more points. The only thing that makes it slightly more swallowable is that they at least were balanced....not a rip on them in the least....just a rip on this happening period
You usually write logical comments and generally make sense. But this is extremely off Nibor. Sorry, no disrespect. 200+ is ridiculous any way you look at it. NBA Jam did not win easily like the Texas game you are referring to. So there is no defense for this game when it comes to GLB coding. It is simply embarrassing.
What he said Also, I'm almost as disgusted that Alpine was able to rack up even more points. The only thing that makes it slightly more swallowable is that they at least were balanced....not a rip on them in the least....just a rip on this happening period
Edited by PP on Sep 24, 2010 12:02:46
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by cavalier
You usually write logical comments and generally make sense. But this is extremely off Nibor. Sorry, no disrespect. 200+ is ridiculous any way you look at it. NBA Jam did not win easily like the Texas game you are referring to. So there is no defense for this game when it comes to GLB coding. It is simply embarrassing.
I'm not saying this is completely desirable. But I am saying that this is the result not of a single game element being broken, but of someone taking a single game element to the extreme beyond what anyone would attempt in real life.
The Run'n'Shoot offense was a similar idea, and as I recall took a little bit of getting used to by defenses before it was run out of the league.
Speaking of the Run'n'Shoot - one of the weaknesses was the inability to shorten the game with a lead.
After the long TD to open the 2nd half, Arcade was up 62-38. Couldn't close the deal, though - similar to the Houston Oilers playoff collapse against the Bills, where at 35-3 the Oilers ran 22 pass plays and 4 rushing plays, couldn't control the ball or the clock, and created the most epic playoff failure in NFL history. Yes, yes I am bitter about it.
Is the passing game in the sim perfect? By no means. All the standard problems exist - WRs can't get open except with pure speed, WRs built for speed can catch almost anything (in heavy coverage) by having a huge AEQ/VA stack going, but WRs built for possession can't catch noticeably more passes, or use AEQ/VA to stack up speed or something else to create separation, the pass rush is still wonky, pass defenses seem to need to be set to all-or-nothing approaches to go for INTs because anything more conservative still just lets the O march down the field, etc etc.
But even if the passing game was balanced how people think it should be - games like this one will STILL exist. This isn't a passing game imbalance issue.
If you want to prevent these sorts of games, you have to change something else. I think for starters you'd have to fix the play clock, cut about 30 plays per team off the top of this game, and cut the score down to a mindboggling 85-73 or so.
Now, I'm not a gameplanner - someone tell me what your best options are in GLB right now if a team is going to 100% pass. Are the tools there to cope with that if you *know* you aren't going to be defending the run? I'm not really even a real life football geek, so I dunno what you'd do in real life, either.
And of course...did Alpine do those things? Or did they have to keep their D honest to the run in some ways?
You usually write logical comments and generally make sense. But this is extremely off Nibor. Sorry, no disrespect. 200+ is ridiculous any way you look at it. NBA Jam did not win easily like the Texas game you are referring to. So there is no defense for this game when it comes to GLB coding. It is simply embarrassing.
I'm not saying this is completely desirable. But I am saying that this is the result not of a single game element being broken, but of someone taking a single game element to the extreme beyond what anyone would attempt in real life.
The Run'n'Shoot offense was a similar idea, and as I recall took a little bit of getting used to by defenses before it was run out of the league.
Speaking of the Run'n'Shoot - one of the weaknesses was the inability to shorten the game with a lead.
After the long TD to open the 2nd half, Arcade was up 62-38. Couldn't close the deal, though - similar to the Houston Oilers playoff collapse against the Bills, where at 35-3 the Oilers ran 22 pass plays and 4 rushing plays, couldn't control the ball or the clock, and created the most epic playoff failure in NFL history. Yes, yes I am bitter about it.
Is the passing game in the sim perfect? By no means. All the standard problems exist - WRs can't get open except with pure speed, WRs built for speed can catch almost anything (in heavy coverage) by having a huge AEQ/VA stack going, but WRs built for possession can't catch noticeably more passes, or use AEQ/VA to stack up speed or something else to create separation, the pass rush is still wonky, pass defenses seem to need to be set to all-or-nothing approaches to go for INTs because anything more conservative still just lets the O march down the field, etc etc.
But even if the passing game was balanced how people think it should be - games like this one will STILL exist. This isn't a passing game imbalance issue.
If you want to prevent these sorts of games, you have to change something else. I think for starters you'd have to fix the play clock, cut about 30 plays per team off the top of this game, and cut the score down to a mindboggling 85-73 or so.
Now, I'm not a gameplanner - someone tell me what your best options are in GLB right now if a team is going to 100% pass. Are the tools there to cope with that if you *know* you aren't going to be defending the run? I'm not really even a real life football geek, so I dunno what you'd do in real life, either.
And of course...did Alpine do those things? Or did they have to keep their D honest to the run in some ways?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
