Warrior General Games

Looks like FS/SS have every eligible receiver on their list, so they should cover everyone.

I seem to remember seeing some weird interactions with WR screens though.

edit for next page: Links to broken plays would help a lot.

Originally posted by Corndog
Link to those plays?

I actually just started compiling a spreadsheet with multiple examples of every bug I've noticed but not voiced in the forums so people can't just say "fix ur buildz scrub!".

Before your coverage assignment code was added, the safeties 100% never covered a TE or WR on the opposite side of the field. I'll be sure to shoot you a replay or two today of the 5 wide problem when I'm going through games for all bugs today.

What I'm also hoping is this also allows the LOLB in a dime formation to cover WR5, even if it would be a mismatch the receiver could easily win... better than being wide open with nobody trailing.

Since I don't see it being any harm, here is the current hash

Originally posted by
CB1 => [qw/WR1 WR3 BTE HB FB/],
CB2 => [qw/WR2 WR4 WR5 TE HB FB/],
CB3 => [qw/WR1 WR3 BTE HB FB/],
CB4 => [qw/WR2 WR4 WR5 TE HB FB/],
CB5 => [qw/WR2 WR4 WR5 TE HB FB/],
FS => [qw/WR1 WR2 WR3 WR4 WR5 BTE TE HB FB/],
SS => [qw/WR1 WR2 WR3 WR4 WR5 BTE TE HB FB/],,
LOLB => [qw/WR2 WR4 WR5 TE HB FB/],
ROLB => [qw/WR1 WR3 BTE HB FB/],
LILB => [qw/WR2 WR4 WR5 TE HB FB/],
RILB => [qw/WR1 WR3 BTE HB FB/],
MLB => [qw/WR1 WR2 WR3 WR4 WR5 BTE TE HB FB/]

They also take precedence in that order, and don't double a receiver unless they make it through their list once.

Does that mean that on 4WR plays the WRs have been renumbered?

I seem to remember in GLB1 that the WRs were normally:

WR1 O-line/TE WR2
WR1 WR3 O-lineTE WR2
WR1 WR2 O-line WR3 WR4
WR1 WR3 O-line WR5 WR4 WR2

Unless I'm mistaken.

Edit:

Fixed for being mistaken.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Does that mean that on 4WR plays the WRs have been renumbered?

I seem to remember in GLB1 that the WRs were normally:

WR1 O-line/TE WR2
WR1 WR3 O-lineTE WR2
WR1 WR2 O-line WR3 WR4
WR1 WR3 O-line WR5 WR4 WR3

Unless I'm mistaken.

5WR doesn't have two WR3s

Originally posted by Corndog
5WR doesn't have two WR3s

The second WR3 is WR2.

Originally posted by Time Trial
The second WR3 is WR2.

That looks right then.

Originally posted by Corndog
5WR doesn't have two WR3s

...but was I right about the 4 WR formation having that different straight across setup?

Also I forgot

WR1 WR2 WR3 Oline/TE

for trips.

Yeah, trips is different.

But you still want CB2 covering WR2, so it works.

Because if FS => [qw/WR1 WR2 WR3 WR4 WR5 BTE TE HB FB/],

Wouldn't that mean that the FS will be running all over the field if they are covering weak side and strong side players?

Originally posted by Time Trial
Because if FS => [qw/WR1 WR2 WR3 WR4 WR5 BTE TE HB FB/],

Wouldn't that mean that the FS will be running all over the field if they are covering weak side and strong side players?

If you compare where the WR2 lines up on the weak side on some plays and the strong side on others?

Originally posted by Corndog
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/25630/1759319

At work. Can't watch replays right now due to old IE8.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Because if FS => [qw/WR1 WR2 WR3 WR4 WR5 BTE TE HB FB/],

Wouldn't that mean that the FS will be running all over the field if they are covering weak side and strong side players?

Well, they will pick someone at the beginning of the play, line up over them, then cover them.

But yeah, the FS can go to strong side to cover an uncovered WR or whatnot.

Originally posted by Corndog
Well, they will pick someone at the beginning of the play, line up over them, then cover them.

But yeah, the FS can go to strong side to cover an uncovered WR or whatnot.

Thanks for the work in improving the assignment logic. I'll be testing some things against TT in our ladder game in the next half hour.

ily Cdog this is great