Warrior General Games

I do agree with talmon, it's a great idea... unfortunately it seems like noone who matters is listening.

Regardless, +1

IMO no more new VAs, website upgrades until the sim can at least properly represent all the basic tenets of the game. Such as this suggestion. How can you have a football sim that claims realism as it's aim and have a kickoff occur after a safety? May not see like a big deal but it is. For one it probably means 10-25 yds in field position. One of the rewards for a safety is a short field. Plus it's the point. That's the rules of the game. Just like how you can't really position your D players in the proper ways to achieve a 4-3 alignment. FYI: GLB's 4-3 is a quite flawed. Really the LB and S limitations keep you from doing it to. We are running a sim with only about half of the common offensive formations. There are no trap or counter running plays. No play action pass plays. No WR crackback blocking. No chip blocking. No HB/FB/TE block and release pass routes.

DOn't get me wrong I like the new VAs, some of the recent surface/website changes have been long overdue. But couldn't you hire someone else to come in and revamp these more simplistic issues, while Bort continues to work on the improvement of the sim. There really needs to be a "combing" through all details of this game to insure authenticity. I think most people can deal with a sim not working perfectly, but we shouldn't have to adjust our knowledge of football to understand GLB football. There should not continue to be nerfs and changes that pandor to those who don't understand football so they can compete with those that do. So many people line up Nickel and Dime against the 4-3 and 4-4s against a 5WR. THen they can't understand why things don't work right. Or we just make it easier to get sacks to satisfy the notion that there should always be sacks in a game. There aren't always sacks in a game. THere's usually pressure, hurries, knockdowns. But sacks are hard to come by. The best teams get 3-4 a game. Average is a little over 2 per team per game. Here is an ESPN article to support my claim.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2606174

Anyway, things like this may never be rectified as GLB has went down the road of "re-scripting" the game of football to pandor to whiners and general negative people who continue to complain about the same issue. My player is not dominating to my liking. But at least we could fix a very very simple issue like this. Let's have punting after a safety

Originally posted by mwindle
IMO no more new VAs, website upgrades until the sim can at least properly represent all the basic tenets of the game. Such as this suggestion. How can you have a football sim that claims realism as it's aim and have a kickoff occur after a safety? May not see like a big deal but it is. For one it probably means 10-25 yds in field position. One of the rewards for a safety is a short field. Plus it's the point. That's the rules of the game. Just like how you can't really position your D players in the proper ways to achieve a 4-3 alignment. FYI: GLB's 4-3 is a quite flawed. Really the LB and S limitations keep you from doing it to. We are running a sim with only about half of the common offensive formations. There are no trap or counter running plays. No play action pass plays. No WR crackback blocking. No chip blocking. No HB/FB/TE block and release pass routes.

DOn't get me wrong I like the new VAs, some of the recent surface/website changes have been long overdue. But couldn't you hire someone else to come in and revamp these more simplistic issues, while Bort continues to work on the improvement of the sim. There really needs to be a "combing" through all details of this game to insure authenticity. I think most people can deal with a sim not working perfectly, but we shouldn't have to adjust our knowledge of football to understand GLB football. There should not continue to be nerfs and changes that pandor to those who don't understand football so they can compete with those that do. So many people line up Nickel and Dime against the 4-3 and 4-4s against a 5WR. THen they can't understand why things don't work right. Or we just make it easier to get sacks to satisfy the notion that there should always be sacks in a game. There aren't always sacks in a game. THere's usually pressure, hurries, knockdowns. But sacks are hard to come by. The best teams get 3-4 a game. Average is a little over 2 per team per game. Here is an ESPN article to support my claim.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2606174

Anyway, things like this may never be rectified as GLB has went down the road of "re-scripting" the game of football to pandor to whiners and general negative people who continue to complain about the same issue. My player is not dominating to my liking. But at least we could fix a very very simple issue like this. Let's have punting after a safety



ty up!

to da top?

top again...

202 post...

203 post soon CHISTMAS OMFG!

epic suggestion!

Originally posted by mwindle
IMO no more new VAs, website upgrades until the sim can at least properly represent all the basic tenets of the game. Such as this suggestion. How can you have a football sim that claims realism as it's aim and have a kickoff occur after a safety? May not see like a big deal but it is. For one it probably means 10-25 yds in field position. One of the rewards for a safety is a short field. Plus it's the point. That's the rules of the game. Just like how you can't really position your D players in the proper ways to achieve a 4-3 alignment. FYI: GLB's 4-3 is a quite flawed. Really the LB and S limitations keep you from doing it to. We are running a sim with only about half of the common offensive formations. There are no trap or counter running plays. No play action pass plays. No WR crackback blocking. No chip blocking. No HB/FB/TE block and release pass routes.

DOn't get me wrong I like the new VAs, some of the recent surface/website changes have been long overdue. But couldn't you hire someone else to come in and revamp these more simplistic issues, while Bort continues to work on the improvement of the sim. There really needs to be a "combing" through all details of this game to insure authenticity. I think most people can deal with a sim not working perfectly, but we shouldn't have to adjust our knowledge of football to understand GLB football. There should not continue to be nerfs and changes that pandor to those who don't understand football so they can compete with those that do. So many people line up Nickel and Dime against the 4-3 and 4-4s against a 5WR. THen they can't understand why things don't work right. Or we just make it easier to get sacks to satisfy the notion that there should always be sacks in a game. There aren't always sacks in a game. THere's usually pressure, hurries, knockdowns. But sacks are hard to come by. The best teams get 3-4 a game. Average is a little over 2 per team per game. Here is an ESPN article to support my claim.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2606174

Anyway, things like this may never be rectified as GLB has went down the road of "re-scripting" the game of football to pandor to whiners and general negative people who continue to complain about the same issue. My player is not dominating to my liking. But at least we could fix a very very simple issue like this. Let's have punting after a safety



nice

Ed note: Reformatted for discussion purposes.

Originally posted by mwindle

IMO no more new VAs,[sic] website upgrades until the sim can at least properly represent all the basic tenets of the game.
Basic tenets according to who?

Originally posted by mwindle
Such as this suggestion. How can you have a football sim that claims realism as it's[sic] aim and have a kickoff occur after a safety? May not see like a big deal but it is. For one it probably means 10-25 yds in field position. One of the rewards for a safety is a short field. Plus it's the point. That's the rules of the game.
Again, according to who? Does every form of football in the US have punts after a safety? Did the NFL always have punts after a safety? I honestly don't know. Also, even if the NFL rule is that a punt follows a safety, this is not an NFL MMORPG. It's an "American football MMORPG". So just saying that "it's the NFL rule" really has no weight. Your points before that are more valid, but you use them incorrectly. Argue for why you think it should be the rule: the added field position is an additional reward for being able to achieve a safety above and beyond the 2 points and possession of the ball. You obviously feel that merely getting the ball and the 2 points is not a sufficient reward. Others may disagree about that.

Originally posted by mwindle
Just like how you can't really position your D players in the proper ways to achieve a 4-3 alignment. FYI: GLB's 4-3 is a quite flawed. Really the LB and S limitations keep you from doing it to[sic]. We are running a sim with only about half of the common offensive formations. There are no trap or counter running plays. No play action pass plays. No WR crackback blocking. No chip blocking. No HB/FB/TE block and release pass routes.
I honestly don't know about the defensive formations. I do know the offensive points you raise drive me a little nuts (as in, I agree). But see below, progress is incremental.

Originally posted by mwindle
DOn't[sic] get me wrong I like the new VAs, some of the recent surface/website changes have been long overdue. But couldn't you hire someone else to come in and revamp these more simplistic issues, while Bort continues to work on the improvement of the sim.
You shouldn't assume that this is feasible. Maybe I'm reading into your post, but the tenor you have had to this point makes this read like you aren't asking in earnest if they could, but more insinuating that they are doing it wrong by not having done this yet. If I'm reading too much into it, my apologies.

There is also something to be said for Bort at least being familiar with every bit of code on here even if he doesn't author it himself. In the end, he's the the top guy and ultimately responsible for what goes on. If someone else were to code something and then leave, he's responsible for making sure it works after they're gone. No one but Bort is a permanent fixture here. (Well, even he isn't, but I bet that if he leaves the game gets shut down and at that point none of this matters.)

Originally posted by mwindle
There really needs to be a "combing" through all details of this game to insure[sic] authenticity. I think most people can deal with a sim not working perfectly, but we shouldn't have to adjust our knowledge of football to understand GLB football.
You're proceeding from a couple faulty premises here. First, not everyone joins the game with football knowledge. Second, not everyone has the same base of football knowledge. Learning and adjusting to the realities of this sim is always going to be necessary.

Originally posted by mwindle
There should not continue to be nerfs and changes that pandor[sic] to those who don't understand football so they can compete with those that do.
This is an awfully cynical statement. I also think it ignores a reality of what this game is: an economic enterprise. Whatever else motivates Bort to run this place, money is certainly part of it. I don't think it's the all-consuming reason that other people think it is (I get very tired of seeing "OMG THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN CUS BORT WILL LOSE MONEY!@!#@#!@!@#" posts). But, in being an economic enterprise, Bort has to in some ways work with his customer base in order to deliver a product they wish to spend money on. With as large a user base as this place has (a friend of mine joined not long after I did, almost a year ago, and he's user #286,694), some of the changes that occur are bound to piss off some of those people. This large user base also means that the desires of the crowd may not match how the NFL works, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. In my year here I have seen a vast number of improvements to this game and in fact those changes and the development I have seen over that time are why I bought flex in the recent sale. I believe the sim is headed in the right direction and that Bort's motivations are in the right place.

Also, don't kid yourself about something: most of the changes in the NFL are based upon making the viewers happy.

Originally posted by mwindle
So many people line up Nickel and Dime against the 4-3 and 4-4s against a 5WR. THen[sic] they can't understand why things don't work right. Or we just make it easier to get sacks to satisfy the notion that there should always be sacks in a game. There aren't always sacks in a game. THere's[sic] usually pressure, hurries, knockdowns. But sacks are hard to come by. The best teams get 3-4 a game. Average is a little over 2 per team per game. Here is an ESPN article to support my claim.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2606174
Again, I'm not really up on defensive tactics, I don't deal with that much. However, you contradict yourself here. You say "[t]here aren't always sacks in a game" and then say "[a]verage is a little over 2 per team per game." So which is it? Not always occurring, or 4 per game (2 per team per game)? My only point here is you need an internally consistent argument in order to be persuasive. That ESPN article actually backs up your second point, 4 per game, while refuting your assertion that sacks don't occur every game. If you wish to argue that sacks are too frequent, you need to go review games that are close, find the sack count, and then present that data. For example, my team has played 5 games where the teams were matched up fairly well, and in those 5 games 22 sacks occurred. That's 4.4 per game which is well in line with the numbers in that article. And one of those games features my team giving up eight, so if you remove that game (which could definitely be termed a 'statistical outlier') the average drops to 3.5 per game. To me, this says that sacks are happening at an appropriate rate.

Originally posted by mwindle
Anyway, things like this may never be rectified as GLB has went down the road of "re-scripting" the game of football to pandor[sic] to whiners and general negative people who continue to complain about the same issue. My player is not dominating to my liking. But at least we could fix a very very simple issue like this. Let's have punting after a safety

Again, such cynicism.

A reality of coding and game design is things have to happen in an incremental fashion. You don't just design an entire game at once. You design part of the offense, part of the defense, and then you see how they interact. You work that out and then try to expand it. Rinse and repeat. While doing that, you also have to work on the UI. You could have the best game in the world but if it looks like shit and is a pain to play, no one will play it. Also, there's the motivation and interest factor. Working on the same thing over and over is really boring. If it helps Bort to work on the sim by taking a break and coding some UI enhancements before going back to working on the o-line blocking mechanics (while still kind of suck), then so be it. It's all effort designed to make this a better game and I'm all for that. As I said above, I have seen nothing that makes me think Bort is motivated by anything other than delivering the best product he can.

A final note here, and it's regarding the [sic]s I inserted above. For those that aren't aware, [sic] is an editorial note meaning "error in original" and its use is what you would expect: when quoting someone else you use [sic] to denote that you are aware of the error and choose to reproduce it in order to stay faithful to the original work. The reason I pointed out the errors here is because the quoted post was fairly long and clearly was formulating an argument for the purposes of trying to persuade readers. The piece loses some of its impact by containing errors in it. I feel that it conveys a sense of laziness and a lack of caring about the content. Part of why I attribute cynicism and a certain tenor to the piece is because of the errors contained: they make this take on the feeling of a rant in places. A final reason to insist upon accuracy in the use of language is to ensure clarity in communication. If you use language incorrectly it is possible for the reader to misinterpret what you have written. Since all we have are the words on the screen, getting those words right is tremendously important. Written communication has temporal and physical displacements that make it a tougher form of communication than face to face conversation. I'm not trying to malign the author in any way, I'm making an argument as to why accuracy in the use of language matters and trying to persuade would-be authors to take the time to proofread what they write, it only helps discourse.

Originally posted by DancingRenji
I agree that this is a very good suggestion. The closer that this game can get to actual football the more everyone will enjoy it. That's why I agree with you Talmon.

+1

safety = punt to the team that caused the safety.

Originally posted by whitewolf

Again, according to who? Does every form of football in the US have punts after a safety? Did the NFL always have punts after a safety? I honestly don't know. Also, even if the NFL rule is that a punt follows a safety, this is not an NFL MMORPG. It's an "American football MMORPG". So just saying that "it's the NFL rule" really has no weight. Your points before that are more valid, but you use them incorrectly. Argue for why you think it should be the rule: the added field position is an additional reward for being able to achieve a safety above and beyond the 2 points and possession of the ball. You obviously feel that merely getting the ball and the 2 points is not a sufficient reward. Others may disagree about that.

To answer this...

The play after the Safety has always been a 'Free Kick' by the team that gave up the safety. A 'Free Kick' is either a Kickoff (without a tee in the NFL, all other levels can use a tee), Punt or a Drop Kick (like a punt but the ball bounces off the ground before kicked O_o). In the NFL the Punt is used all most exclusively, for the reasons a couple people have mentioned (no need for holder when punting equals better coverage / punting has a lower likelihood of long return because of hangtime) . College and High School mostly Punt as well but Kickoffs are not uncommon (especially in High School).

In all forms of Football played in America the Free Kick after a Safety is from the 20 yard line of the team that gave up the Safety. Canadian Football places the ball at the 25 yard line.

Ty all for all the participation for 205 + posts. Lets get this a epic for 2+ months old.

Nvm not 2 months old since October 21st 2008!!!! OMFG how much time do u need bort?