Warrior General Games

how did this devolve into a "buff passing" thread?

what happened to all that stuff about there being nothing for new users to do?

Originally posted by Corndog
Less than a tenth of a percent log in days later to see how their player did in a game, let alone get mad that they "didn't go for it on 4th and 8" and quit. The overwhelming majority of new users log in, make a player, realize there's nothing to do, then forget about about the game.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5244670?page=3#49200391

Originally posted by Corndog
It's easy to think that issues you have are issues that everyone has, and mask it as some kind of "save the game" campaign, but making players fall down less isn't going to change the fact that 999 out of 1000 new users leave before they see their players fall down.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5244670?page=3#49200421

it looks like the obvious answer would be to add new content to the existing site, for users to do between games. don't worry about sim changes until people stick around to see the sim.

Originally posted by TJ Spikes

what happened to all that stuff about there being nothing for new users to do?


Its not 100% necessary, but for a game to grow you need to maintain your current base. You expect some amount of attrition but failing to address issues brought up by the current base will only hinder growth as the .1% of new sign-ups will be offset by higher attrition.

http://weareyellowball.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sinking.ship01.jpeg

"Um Sir, I have bad news..... There's a row of cargo that isn't properly secured"

Originally posted by ThirdAndLong

I disagree - it is possible for all plays to be the best play. That is, for every play there could be some set of circumstances (down and distance, field position, opponent's play choice, etc) under which that play is the best. In fact, this situation is exactly what you as game designers should be striving for. It certainly doesn't mean that, under any given set of circumstances, all plays are equally successful.

The situation to avoid is one in which there are two plays (call them A and B) such that there is no set of circumstances under which B is better than A. Then A dominates B, and there is no reason for anyone ever to use B.

I wish I could have given this post 50 thumbs up.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Good things come to those who wait...

GE it's easy for you to say that - or me, or anybody on our team specifically that is running a portion of the team. But when you're an online gaming guild with 20 people who are playing together, the only thing for people to do is click + buttons after games, and watch the replays.

It's not just the results that people dislike - it's that there's nothing for them to do.

What's the danger of running a referral program with some mean laddered rewards? It's pretty well known that referred customers spend more than those who are not. That's true in everything from the gaming world to the food distribution world. People also stay/stick around in games like these because of their friends/acquaintances they meet. And it's not just spam on the internet. You push people towards real word of mouth. Co-workers, family, friends, etc.

I can understand the not coming back after login dilemma, but that's going to be tied to the site design and some misunderstandings where people are expecting Madden-like gameplay. Tying to email more with spit out reports, stats, etc. would likely draw more work-crowd in and get people back in after their player actually played a game, but that's a time-consuming change with ToS/Privacy modifications.

A referral program should be wicked easy to implement and have no $$$ cost to GLB besides some future flex sales. This isn't chastising you for not hiring a great web design and or SEO firm and telling you to cough up thousands of dollars from your emptying pockets. You can give tiered rewards where the #'s are actually incentivizing. Each time you hit a tier, you get that reward (on top of the old ones you've accumulated). Superstars, flex, collector's items, swag. I'm guessing you likewise have a good idea on the lifetime value of a customer in this game as well. Should be easy to calculate.

On the mechanics/real coding side, this game really needs more competition. Also has. More competition = more player/team strategizing = more team creation = more emotion on the board = more money being swung. Prized/sponsored tournaments for the top 10 or 20% were a big missed opportunity in both this game and GLB1. You could have even rocked pay to play to get some additional revenue out of them.

srsly, people battle crickets. http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/cricket-fighting-competition?articleId=USRTX146K0

The sim being good and not great really matters pretty little in the overall success of the game from an active/profitable standpoint. It's just competition and human emotion.

Originally posted by TJ Spikes

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5244670?page=3#49200421

it looks like the obvious answer would be to add new content to the existing site, for users to do between games. don't worry about sim changes until people stick around to see the sim.



Let ppl coach CPU teams, thats the real meat of this game

Originally posted by Corndog
There's nearly 400 offensive plays. As great of a pipe dream as it may be for all 400 plays to have their own unique situation where they are the best play, it is a pretty unreasonable expectation. Especially in a game format where you set tactics before a game and then hope for the best. Most games will consist of coordinators picking the dozen or so plays that are most effective in the most situations, and that will be that.
Then perhaps the problem is that 400 plays is too many. You need to look at each play and ask "under what circumstances would I choose this play over all others?". If there's no answer to that question, then there's little point in having that play as an option. (Note that circumstances include your opponent's play choice; that is, if you knew what play your opponent was going to run, what would you choose to do?)

400 Offensive plays and almost all the teams use the same 15 plays

There is never going to be too many plays. That is complete nonsense.

I do agree that some of those plays can be used under the right scenario. But corndog...or whoever. What are you considering at the moment? Because I don't see all this back n forth going anywhere if we don't know what is realistic enough to be of focus for changes.

Originally posted by Xars
Thanks.

Combine that with an improved SA in Quick Hitter (up to 9 yards from 6) and maybe we've got something.

I'd also make Quick Hitter work on 3rd Down. Maybe that's 6 yards distance and First/Second down are 9 yards.

OR change QH to work on 2nd and 3rd Down (instead of First).

Quick Hitter at 9 yards just buffs a lot of the current spammed plays, it does noting to fix route running and catching short passes.

Instead of making the game easier...the focus should be on making it make more sense to realistic football. I would hate any play changes or ypc changes. Please don't fall into the trap.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Quick Hitter at 9 yards just buffs a lot of the current spammed plays, it does noting to fix route running and catching short passes.

I disagree. You didn't provide your thought process so I'm not sure how to argue the point, but here's what I see.

From GLB2Scout.com - History - S12 - Vet - Offense Pass vs D

The top spammed Passing plays:

3993 SB TE Post 55.62% Comp% 6.62 YPA 11.90 YPC
3891 SB TE Drive 52.79% Comp% 8.12 YPA 15.38 YPC
3054 SB Trips WR Posts 51.51% Comp% 7.83 YPA 15.20 YPC
2866 SG TE Drive 47.49% Comp% 7.09 YPA 14.92 YPC

Next is SG WR Hook at 1636 plays, so the above are the big 4. Let's look at them.

Three of them are at 14.92-15.38 YPC. Since we are using S12 data, I'll be consistent and use LZ Boys data. (Note: I'm trying to get Stobie to re-run his S12 Historical data with Big Play yardage set at 10 for Passing so we can get the Global number's for this. He's not sure he can.)

SB TE Drive 56.8% Comp% 8.6 YPA 15.2 YPC --- 47.3% 10+ YPC (83% of catches) means that 9.5% of the time a catch is made less than ten yards
SB Trips WR Posts 52.5% Comp% 8.1 YPA 15.4 YPC --- 42% 10+ YPC (80% of catches) means that 10.5% of the time a catch is made less than ten yards
SG TE Drive 52.8% Comp% 7.6 YPA 14.3 YPC --- 39% 10+ YPC (74% of catches) means that 13.6% of the time a catch is made less than ten yards

So what would QH do for these three plays? Increase the comp% only 11-12% of the plays?

Let's say that QH increases comp% by 20 full points. That seems like a lot so it should be a conservative estimate, but it's just a guess.

A 20% comp% increase on 12% of the targets has a 2.4% comp% change to the overall play. First, I don't think that significantly alters the play dynamics, but if you buff QH to 9 yard catches, the idea should be implemented in conjunction with a buff to CiT below 9 yards (or whatever) and a nerf to past 10 yards.

The combo of the two would buff 20% of the catches on the most spammed plays and nerf 80% of the catches.

So as I stated above, I disagree with your assertion.

What's your thought process?



(Sidebar: The analysis for TE Post for LZ Boys is:

SB TE Post 57.9% Comp% 6.7 YPA 11.50 YPC --- 30.5% 10+ YPC (52.67% of catches)

So TE Post would be buffed on 47+% of catches and nerfed on 52% of catches. That arguement can go either way depending on how significant the buff/nerf is.)