Warrior General Games

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Would rather the QB throw the ball at Tick 26 like he did, as opposed to Tick 18 there. That's a good 1 on 1 situation and that's how that route is supposed to go.



In that situation, sure but ...

The Global completion% of this "Short" play is only 47.37% on 532 plays. At Vet, it's 48% for 100 plays.

So like Myrik says:

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
Similar, but not the NFL, we are confined to game mechanics.

So if the tradeoff is 48% for an 11yd gain, or 65-75% for a 4-7yd gain on a Short play, I'm for the latter.

The thing is how do we get the Comp% up to high 60s-low70s for the shorter completion.

New plays!


- Added a new Signature Ability for Offensive Linemen: "Absolute Unit." There were no abilities that allowed linemen to use Pass Block Power to turn around a losing pass blocking situation, and this fills that void. This ability is sort of a counterpart to defense's Tunnel Vision ability.
- Slightly increased play action fake strength. Hopefully we can find a nice middle ground power level for it.
- Improved ability for receivers to make sharp cuts with Route Running technique skill, by adding a couple of special handlers specifically for that skill relating to balance loss and turning. This should help them on routes with a lot of direction changes, or drastic direction changes, that currently take too long to develop due to them slowing down heavily on cuts.
- Greatly increased the chances of for a QB to pass a Pass Consistency roll when under pressure on a Screen Pass play, and reduced the threshold the receiver has to travel before he's considered ok to throw to. This should help them not take so many sacks on screen passes from "panicking."
- Fixed Play #282 I form QB Off Tackle Strong to better match play art
- Added the following new O plays to fill out Big I playbook some, and fill in some missing HB screens and rushes in other formations:

https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/650.gif Big I PA TE Seam
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/651.gif Big I WR Slant
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/652.gif Big I WR Flag
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/653.gif Big I HB Wheel
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/654.gif Big I WR Post
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/655.gif Big I TE Double Drive
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/656.gif Big I HB Screen Right
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/657.gif Big I FB Dive Left
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/658.gif Big I FB Slam
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/659.gif Big I FB Off Tackle
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/660.gif Big I FB Off Tackle Wk
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/661.gif Big I QB Sneak Left
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/662.gif Big I QB Sneak Right
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/663.gif Big I QB Off Tackle
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/664.gif Big I QB Off Tackle Wk
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/665.gif Big I HB Counter Strong
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/666.gif Big I FB Screen Left
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/668.gif Big I HB Counter Weak
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/667.gif Pro Set HB Slam Wk
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/669.gif Pro Set HB Screen Weak
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/670.gif Diamond HB Screen Strong
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/671.gif Pistol HB Screen Weak
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/672.gif Pistol HB Screen
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/673.gif Pistol Big HB Screen
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/674.gif Pistol Strong HB Screen Left
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/675.gif Pistol Strong HB Screen

Also, there's been a lot of discussion on making LB's have a higher salary and CB's lower. While I agree this is probably a good idea, we can't just drop it in without giving team owners a chance to adapt their rosters. We could simply swap their values toward the end of next season, but it would also be possible to make players created after a certain time be swapped, and grandfather older players. I'm interested in any feedback for either solution, as far as what feels most fair, and we can look at setting it up for next season. You could chat about this on the discord's GLB2 channel, or just continue the discussion in the current changes thread started by Xars and I'll read through it.

Originally posted by Xars
In that situation, sure but ...

The Global completion% of this "Short" play is only 47.37% on 532 plays. At Vet, it's 48% for 100 plays.

So like Myrik says:

So if the tradeoff is 48% for an 11yd gain, or 65-75% for a 4-7yd gain on a Short play, I'm for the latter.

The thing is how do we get the Comp% up to high 60s-low70s for the shorter completion.


I don't disagree that better short routes are needed in general, but on that particular play you want the QB to wait until it develops. And good WR builds will abuse a CB in that situation, just like in the NFL. A good passing team is not throwing 47% in that scenario.

For the Salary change, I'd say reduce the CB first (S57 or S58) and then state that in 5 (or 9 for a full Vet run) seasons after it the LB salary is going up.

Or just lower the CB and keep the LB cost where it is. I don't think anyone objects to that. Depends on what you (Bort/Cdog) feel is appropriate.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

I don't disagree that better short routes are needed in general, but on that particular play you want the QB to wait until it develops. And good WR builds will abuse a CB in that situation, just like in the NFL. A good passing team is not throwing 47% in that scenario.


Yeah, but we might have to give something.

So, kind of like Defensive tags are now, if we had 2 play versions of that play - Short and Medium - on the Short play the WR would hit the hot spot 4yards into the route and on the Medium version he hits it at 8yards.

Originally posted by Xars

Or just lower the CB and keep the LB cost where it is. I don't think anyone objects to that. Depends on what you (Bort/Cdog) feel is appropriate.



This option gets my vote. Cheaper CBs and LBs with same cost could allow us to play around with having a bigger roster.

Originally posted by Xars
Or just lower the CB and keep the LB cost where it is. I don't think anyone objects to that. Depends on what you (Bort/Cdog) feel is appropriate.



I think this is the fair way to handle this. LB's will be more expensive anyway because the traits they have are better.

Originally posted by Adderfist
I think this is the fair way to handle this. LB's will be more expensive anyway because the traits they have are better.

I'm a little late to the party, why the salary adjustment? Was something wrong?

Originally posted by 4chanCitizen
I'm a little late to the party, why the salary adjustment? Was something wrong?

A LB with the traits Superstar (+150%), Coverage LB(+12%) and Egotist(+12%) costs 7,525,000. A CB with just superstar costs 8,450,000.

If you make them both even on traits, the CB is almost 2 mil more than the LB.

Originally posted by 4chanCitizen
I'm a little late to the party, why the salary adjustment? Was something wrong?

The Top 10 Ladder teams have

10 S* LB and 32 non-S* LB
2 S* CB and 45 non-S* CB

There are reasons.

Trying to fix one of them first.

After watching more games I'm extremely disappointed with "Absolute Unit." Give it a down side to balance the -25 vision penalty that TV has.

Originally posted by Adderfist
After watching more games I'm extremely disappointed with "Absolute Unit." Give it a down side to balance the -25 vision penalty that TV has.

I would suggest to lower the players Footwork so it has counterplay from things like Speed Ends.

Originally posted by ellix
I would suggest to lower the players Footwork so it has counterplay from things like Speed Ends.

I think that would be reasonable. Otherwise not sure why it needs punishment just because tunnel vision has a downside. Not all SA are that way offense vs defense in the game. Like pancake chef has no downside

Originally posted by dredgar
I think that would be reasonable. Otherwise not sure why it needs punishment just because tunnel vision has a downside. Not all SA are that way offense vs defense in the game. Like pancake chef has no downside

Because it's a direct counter to TV and would be game balancing to so.