Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
You could, but I think a few of you would cross the streams.

I want to upvote this but apparently your posts are immune to it

Its not hard to fix those plays. Let the blockers pick up the elusive DE right in their face like they do the DE's on other settings. That's literally it, the plays will work fine, nothing else will be affected.

Originally posted by Blastoh
No one, the idea when you pull the 2 linemen from the same side is the DE is going to blitz himself out of the play towards the QB and the pitch/sweep goes past him so you can ignore that player. You easily counter this play by not blitzing the DE, putting him in a flat zone or setting him to evasive so he tries to go around the oline swings wide and the ball carrier run right into him. It's all working as intended, you just don't like the intent of those plays. The problem is there are very few plays so it's not really like you have different options for outside pitches in certain formations.

Maybe when developing an all run offense you should consider other formations than 4wr. Spread formations are supposed to be designed to pass from and the threat of passing usually takes defenders out of elusive tactics. Its all relative to what your trying to do.

Originally posted by Jagat0r
Maybe when developing an all run offense you should consider other formations than 4wr. Spread formations are supposed to be designed to pass from and the threat of passing usually takes defenders out of elusive tactics. Its all relative to what your trying to do.

sure its a pass formation but it shouldnt be completely unusable by run teams either.

Looks like the best solution to the ghosting DE's is the threat of a forward pass. Evasive DE's against a pass are pretty terrible and also give any blitzers a longer path to the QB.

Originally posted by Mysterio
A pulling blocker should pick up somebody directly in front of them. Theres no point in blocking downfield when you've let someone blow by you to get the ballcarrier in the backfield. Sure, you dont want pulling blockers pulling back to engage a non-threat, but its silly to see three guys let someone get past them just because "not assigned". I dont really see how letting them engage a defender directly in front of them after they begin the pulling motion hurts anything. The plays work out just great when the OT/G/FB pick up the non-elusive DE, just make DEs on elusive pass rush get engaged by these blockers.

Depends on where the pulling blocker is coming from. I swear in GLB2, I've seen a run to the left work because the pulling RG picked up the ghosting DE in time. If the LG pulls, no chance of that DE being picked up. There seems to be a set path + time in that path before a lineman looks around to find a blocker.

That's fine, I get that. But at some point the FB needs to realize he's the last blocker and pick it up. Even if the RB has to delay his path to get around the FB/DE block interaction, it makes sense to preserve the play. That's what the new outside run pathing is about right? Realizing pursuits too strong outside so cutting up earlier?

An NFL team I'm a fan of (Skins) loves (at least when Kyle Shanahan was the OC) to have the o-line ignore a certain DE whether playside or backside, and have someone (usually a TE or FB) come back to block them. Didn't put max bodies out in front of the runner. But guaranteed it was never blown up for a big loss.

So if certain run plays in the playbooks aren't designed well to account for elusive DE's, then their needs to be more run plays added to let us account for that.

Defense has had 10-15 extra plays recently, the offense needs some love now.

Originally posted by Rob.
Looks like the best solution to the ghosting DE's is the threat of a forward pass. Evasive DE's against a pass are pretty terrible and also give any blitzers a longer path to the QB.

I wonder if this is the actual intent of Bortdog - essentially trying to increase the power of balanced teams.

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
Depends on where the pulling blocker is coming from. I swear in GLB2, I've seen a run to the left work because the pulling RG picked up the ghosting DE in time. If the LG pulls, no chance of that DE being picked up. There seems to be a set path + time in that path before a lineman looks around to find a blocker.

That's fine, I get that. But at some point the FB needs to realize he's the last blocker and pick it up. Even if the RB has to delay his path to get around the FB/DE block interaction, it makes sense to preserve the play. That's what the new outside run pathing is about right? Realizing pursuits too strong outside so cutting up earlier?

An NFL team I'm a fan of (Skins) loves (at least when Kyle Shanahan was the OC) to have the o-line ignore a certain DE whether playside or backside, and have someone (usually a TE or FB) come back to block them. Didn't put max bodies out in front of the runner. But guaranteed it was never blown up for a big loss.

So if certain run plays in the playbooks aren't designed well to account for elusive DE's, then their needs to be more run plays added to let us account for that.

Defense has had 10-15 extra plays recently, the offense needs some love now.


Yes, if anything else a lead blocking FB or HB should be picking up that DE. excellent point.

I think the biggest problem with evasive des is hb have a set path on pitches and evasive des go so wide they run right around the ots and right into the path. maybe loosen the pathing a bit or something might alleviate the issue

Originally posted by Rob.
Looks like the best solution to the ghosting DE's is the threat of a forward pass. Evasive DE's against a pass are pretty terrible and also give any blitzers a longer path to the QB.

DEs on power do the same shit lol

Originally posted by Corndog
For example, the "ghosting" issue is players not blocking a player they aren't assigned to block. Just "fixing it" and making players block any player in their vicinity would create pretty disastrous results in many other situations. So it consists of figuring out what exactly the fix should be, and fixing that.

Basically a lot of finding the least invasive changes that affect what people aren't happy with, and until that least invasive change comes up, we work on other things that need working on.

Start with a fucking Auto halo for lead blocker!!! Why did you give Auto Halos to blitzers and stuff but refuse to do it with lead blockers?!

Originally posted by Corndog
I mainly just wanted to get my changes uploaded to see how they work before Bort does whatever a Bort does.

Mhhhh...thought you are a sitting in a basement together

Originally posted by Corndog
That's an entirely different thing than "ghosting" people are talking about.

Then why cant you fix the play designs??? I Asket you once if you ever played football...can you pls Tell me, if your Coach always let the playside DE uncovered on outside rushes??? I highly doubt it, cause it does not make ANY sense!!! Fix play design, Come on

Originally posted by peeti
Mhhhh...thought you are a sitting in a basement together

Yeah, your mom's.

Originally posted by Corndog
Which turned into a multiple page argument. If I was posting in and responding to arguments in every thread, nothing at all would get done.

I'm sorry you consider it an argument. I considered it a discussion. I didn't title my thread "re-consider" because it was an emotional rage fest.

Also, I run a software company. Supporting users is a cost of the business. I've had my Tech guys spend days with some customers. It happens.

Originally posted by Corndog
I'm pretty content with chemistry.

It emphasizes having staggered roster resets, as well as rotating starters and backups throughout their time spent on your team, and discourages "farm teams" that just replace everyone as well as seasonal ringers.

Originally posted by Rob.
We obviously don't see eye to eye, but at least I can now stop getting my hopes up for a change that will never come.

Originally posted by Rob.
Ok since my chemistry dreams are crushed, any chance of revised ladder matching?

You listened to us and adjusted the Ladder. Any chance for some improvement for the mid-tier teams?

Originally posted by Corndog
I mainly just wanted to get my changes uploaded to see how they work before Bort does whatever a Bort does.

This isn't an argument inducing set of questions, but a process one:

So there are times you make changes and there are times Bort makes them. Correct?

Do you test the changes before going live on a test server? I'm guessing yes, but if you could detail some of your process it would be helpful. You wouldn't be wasting time responding on one narrow issue, but instead addressing a global issue.

And then, do you monitor/test the changes after they go live? Or do you wait for us as a community to respond?

For example: Everyone believes that Power Tackling generates fumbles and even KLs. There's limited belief that Strip Tech does anything. It costs the same SP (about) as Power Tackling, but seems to have far less usage. Have you ever tested something like this after it's been in the game awhile? Just to see if it does work as intended?

Thank you.

Originally posted by jfbueno
Next step of progress would be to actually fix those plays.

Originally posted by Corndog
Yes it would be.

Idea: instead of fixing the "bad plays" couldn't you just delete them from the playbook and put in a new play? Isn't that easier? or is it more difficult?

Perhaps a Sweep to the Strong side pulling the Strong OG&OT could be replaced with pulling the Weak OG and Strong OG, while the Strong OT stays in to block?

Isn't creating a new play using the current logic engine an easier fix than trying to fix the logic engine?

Again, Thank you.