Warrior General Games

Originally posted by manlawner
Honestly how can anybody really game plan for the cpu, as the cpu players change everygame.

The problem isnt that they cant game plan. Obviously they can, they were 8-0. The problem is, they see a CPU team andd try to pad stats by running dumbass plays because you used to be able to get away with blitzing 11 players vs a CPU team every down and it would work. Now people try to do stupid plays to pad stats for some players and wonder why they lost.

Morale of the story, if you dont want to lose to a CPU team, dont try to pad stats.

Originally posted by deez11010
The problem isnt that they cant game plan. Obviously they can, they were 8-0. The problem is, they see a CPU team andd try to pad stats by running dumbass plays because you used to be able to get away with blitzing 11 players vs a CPU team every down and it would work. Now people try to do stupid plays to pad stats for some players and wonder why they lost. Morale of the story, if you dont want to lose to a CPU team, dont try to pad stats.
The "morale" of the story? And for the record, maybe the moral of the story should be that you shouldn't post about things you don't understand (which applies to virtually everything), since you end up looking like an ass. The OP team did not try to stat-pad, genius. They used basically the same gameplan that they had in their victories over human opponents. Please at least try to learn what you're talking about before participating in threads like this.

Originally posted by deez11010
The problem isnt that they cant game plan. Obviously they can, they were 8-0. The problem is, they see a CPU team andd try to pad stats by running dumbass plays because you used to be able to get away with blitzing 11 players vs a CPU team every down and it would work.

Link to where this happened?

Originally posted by deez11010
Now people try to do stupid plays to pad stats for some players and wonder why they lost.

Morale of the story, if you dont want to lose to a CPU team, dont try to pad stats.

I actually blitzed heavily and left players uncovered against a half CPU team a few games ago. Left the CPU TE uncovered half the time, and he caught 7 passes. With the exception of the beginning of the 1st quarter and the beginning of the 2nd quarter in which I played it honestly, it was far worse tactics than PLHS used. I still won 113-7. http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1529220
The moral of the story? It's far easier to beat a half-human, half-CPU team than it is to beat a 99% CPU team. Working as intended?

Well. My team isnt a top of the line team or however anybody wants to put it. Its not THE premier team in the league. BUT..we have never once lost vs a CPU team.

Ever.


Not before the change.

Not right after the change before they "toned down" the CPU players.

Not now.


For the team in the op, 9 other teams seemed to beat it without a problem.

I highly doubt the GLB gods got together and made the team unbeatable for that one game.

Originally posted by deez11010
Well. My team isnt a top of the line team or however anybody wants to put it. Its not THE premier team in the league. BUT..we have never once lost vs a CPU team.

Ever.


Not before the change.

Not right after the change before they "toned down" the CPU players.

Not now.


For the team in the op, 9 other teams seemed to beat it without a problem.

I highly doubt the GLB gods got together and made the team unbeatable for that one game.


You know the human teams that 8-0 team was playing? They didn't lose to the CPU team either. In fact. all of them beat that CPU team. That's the point, genius. The 8-0 team did not lose because of their gameplan, they lost because CPUs are scaled improperly. That's why you won't have to worry about losing to a CPU, because your teams always suck and therefore won't be matched against a super-powered CPU roster. Please stop posting until you actually get a clue.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1525636&pbp_id=7503236

linebacker covering a speed wr

Originally posted by Footballguy22
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1525636&pbp_id=7503236

linebacker covering a speed wr



This is my mistake and let me tell you why it happen...

We got away with this play for the entire season. Why? Because our ROLB was built to be great in coverage, he's incredibly fast and agile. He covered #3 WRs all season and never had a problem.

However, this was the first time I ever played a CPU team and did not know that CPU's scaled up. I still thought #3 WR meant #3 WR. That, obviously, isn't the case.

WRs #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 are all at the same level.

There's no such thing as scheming against a CPU team. You can't use strong/weak match ups as a tool to help you scheme.

It doesn't make any sense to have the whole team be the same level, but whatever... it is what it is. We didn't know and now we do. We clearly don't have a problem with CPU teams any more. It's just sad that you have to do away with your complicated, scheming A.I. and go to the most generic shit possible so that the CPUs don't burn you.


Furthermore, this was not an episode of trying to "pad stats". This was not knowing than every player on the team was the same level and none were weaker than others.

Originally posted by TrevJo

The moral of the story? It's far easier to beat a half-human, half-CPU team than it is to beat a 99% CPU team. Working as intended?

Exactly.

It's because a Human Team has As, Bs, Cs, and Ds and a CPU team has solid Bs. So, yeah, the Human As are going to win their match ups. The Bs will equal out. The CPU Team is going to win match ups against both the Cs and Ds. If you don't account for this, you'll get burned.


As in the play mentioned above, normally the LB (who is an A, but since he's guarding a WR, he drops to a C) covers other C WRs. In other words:

WR A - CB A
WR B - CB B
WR C - LB C

Those are even match ups.


However, when it's a CPU team:
WR B - CB A
WR B - CB B
WR B - LB C

The first 2 WRs are covered, but now the #3 has a big advantage. This works the the same way if it wasn't a LB and was a CB C.

Human Teams Vs. Human Teams can get equal match ups.
Human Teams Vs. CPU Teams, Human teams get the top-tier match ups, but CPUs can win the numbers games. If CPUs lined up in 5-wide all game, their #4 and #5 WRs would more than likely be open all game.


Improper scaling, IMO.

Originally posted by johny_jordan
Originally posted by TrevJo


The moral of the story? It's far easier to beat a half-human, half-CPU team than it is to beat a 99% CPU team. Working as intended?

Exactly.

It's because a Human Team has As, Bs, Cs, and Ds and a CPU team has solid Bs. So, yeah, the Human As are going to win their match ups. The Bs will equal out. The CPU Team is going to win match ups against both the Cs and Ds. If you don't account for this, you'll get burned.


As in the play mentioned above, normally the LB (who is an A, but since he's guarding a WR, he drops to a C) covers other C WRs. In other words:

WR A - CB A
WR B - CB B
WR C - LB C

Those are even match ups.


However, when it's a CPU team:
WR B - CB A
WR B - CB B
WR B - LB C

The first 2 WRs are covered, but now the #3 has a big advantage. This works the the same way if it wasn't a LB and was a CB C.

Human Teams Vs. Human Teams can get equal match ups.
Human Teams Vs. CPU Teams, Human teams get the top-tier match ups, but CPUs can win the numbers games. If CPUs lined up in 5-wide all game, their #4 and #5 WRs would more than likely be open all game.


Improper scaling, IMO.

we also don't know if it is scaling to the pre-decline value of your old dots or is taking that into account

Originally posted by reddogrw
we also don't know if it is scaling to the pre-decline value of your old dots or is taking that into account
There was another game recently where it became pretty clear that CPU scaling does not take decline into account at all, it just scales to the level of the roster.

Originally posted by jdbolick

There was another game recently where it became pretty clear that CPU scaling does not take decline into account at all, it just scales to the level of the roster.

I understand the point of this thread, clearly CPU scaling doesn't account for decline, but I highly doubt Catch/Bort will/should lose any sleep over a cpu team beating a team of almost all 500D old players, and really the majority are probably over 600 days old. The only time a situation like this will occur is when one team has nearly every single player in decline. If people are that concerned about it, they would probably have better luck creating a thread in bugs instead of a whine thread in game recaps about how their team full of elderly players lost to a CPU team.

Originally posted by STC1213
Originally posted by jdbolick


There was another game recently where it became pretty clear that CPU scaling does not take decline into account at all, it just scales to the level of the roster.

I understand the point of this thread, clearly CPU scaling doesn't account for decline, but I highly doubt Catch/Bort will/should lose any sleep over a cpu team beating a team of almost all 500D old players, and really the majority are probably over 600 days old. The only time a situation like this will occur is when one team has nearly every single player in decline. If people are that concerned about it, they would probably have better luck creating a thread in bugs instead of a whine thread in game recaps about how their team full of elderly players lost to a CPU team.

What you don't understand is that CPU scaling also doesn't account for the bottom half of your roster, because the team's Average Level is calculated using only the top half of your roster. So for example if you have 50% level 72s and 50% level 60s on your roster, the CPU will scale as if your whole roster is level 72s. I think that was a much bigger problem in this particular game than player decline was.

The Pro League's players were all over 500 days old

Originally posted by GiantsBoy31
The Pro League's players were all over 500 days old

Firstly, that is false.
Secondly, decline begins at 560 (unless you didn't boost enough).
Thirdly, at the time of the game, only 28 players were over 560 days old, and only 11 were over 576 days old (which is still only -2% decline to primaries).

Like I said, the real problem is probably that the CPUs levels didn't take into account the lower-leveled players on the team. At the time, the team had 10 players between levels 61 and 68. But the CPUs were scaled according to the 28 oldest players, with an average level of 72.8