Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
Lacing it with insults, that's also fine.


Dont say anything like that...it opens up too many windows for flamers and the language in GLB is already bad enough.

Originally posted by Corndog
Saying things are broken is fine.

Lacing it with insults, that's also fine.

But surely you have to understand that a borderline insult ridden report of something broken is going to be taken less serious than on that sticks to the actual game? Hey, I agree that screens aren't working perfectly, but adding that I apparently have no football experience and that WG is doomed and crap is just going to make me stop reading and disregard whatever point you had weaved in there.

You don't have to be nice, but I'm just going to disregard posts that are half insults.

Well, I'm pretty direct and to the point. It's a lot easier to understand than beating around the bush, especially online. And so I meant exactly what I said, in the words I said it. Not the words you just reposted, which is obviously how you took it.

I never said it should be perfect, just would be nice if it was made viable before added into the game.

I never said you don't have any football experience, just not enough.

There are four explanations for the illogical behavior in the game.
Someone didn't care enough to get it right.
Someone didn't have enough time to get it right.
Someone didn't know enough to get it right.
A combination of 2 or 3 of those.

I never said WG was doomed and/or crap. I simply said they should take a week to fix up the large holes that have been pointed out by a large number of players.

However, in the totality of the thread I may have alluded someone to believe the problem is more with the processes, procedures, or structure than the actual product itself. I didn't clearly define that because I'm not sure myself, only someone on the inside could say anything concrete.

I see a lot of room for improvement. This has happened before, I have observations that would help but would take someone able to use the criticism, and people just end up not wanting to hear it or twisting the words and writing me off because they'd rather listen to the sugar coated comments. At least I care enough to be honest and straight forward and take the time to comment on it and provide information. I want to see the game succeed and get better, or else I wouldn't waste my time reading and posting or even playing as much. Someone that is always saying everything is good and fine won't get you any further.

If you'd like I can give you an example of an insult though.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
There are four explanations for the illogical behavior in the game.
Someone didn't care enough to get it right.
Someone didn't have enough time to get it right.
Someone didn't know enough to get it right.
A combination of 2 or 3 of those.

I never said WG was doomed and/or crap. I simply said they should take a week to fix up the large holes that have been pointed out by a large number of players.

Have you ever actually coded?

Recreating the human thought process is a bit more complex than taking a week to clean things up. Nine times out of ten when you fix one thing it breaks another or causes more issues. Making man coverage work logically has now created unstoppable defenses that get sacks every play.

Sure, it's simple enough to look at a couple broken plays, and say "fix it". It's usually also simple enough to go recreate those plays and fix the logic...and then it also breaks the logic in about half a dozen other places. It's not really as simple as looking at a vacuum and saying "he should have done this during this place", while that code will have him do something vastly different in very similar situations.

It doesn't take a very deep knowledge of football to realize that the HB should have went inside on that play. Writing code where the HB decides go inside on that play, while also leaving the possibility for him to make a poor read and go outside, with the same logic that will have him make a good read and go outside in a slightly different situation that also has the possibility for him to make a poor read and go inside instead is...pretty complex.

You could chalk it up to incompetence, but then, nobody anywhere has written an all inclusive AI that always makes the best decisions except for when it shouldn't make the best decision based on randomness. Humanity just works with what it has, and I continue to spend a good chunk of every night writing code to try to fix the numerous issues without creating new issues or exacerbating the others.

Originally posted by Corndog
Have you ever actually coded?

Recreating the human thought process is a bit more complex than taking a week to clean things up. Nine times out of ten when you fix one thing it breaks another or causes more issues. Making man coverage work logically has now created unstoppable defenses that get sacks every play.

Sure, it's simple enough to look at a couple broken plays, and say "fix it". It's usually also simple enough to go recreate those plays and fix the logic...and then it also breaks the logic in about half a dozen other places. It's not really as simple as looking at a vacuum and saying "he should have done this during this place", while that code will have him do something vastly different in very similar situations.

It doesn't take a very deep knowledge of football to realize that the HB should have went inside on that play. Writing code where the HB decides go inside on that play, while also leaving the possibility for him to make a poor read and go outside, with the same logic that will have him make a good read and go outside in a slightly different situation that also has the possibility for him to make a poor read and go inside instead is...pretty complex.

You could chalk it up to incompetence, but then, nobody anywhere has written an all inclusive AI that always makes the best decisions except for when it shouldn't make the best decision based on randomness. Humanity just works with what it has, and I continue to spend a good chunk of every night writing code to try to fix the numerous issues without creating new issues or exacerbating the others.

Corndog,

Agree on lacing things with insults, I think that is fairly pointless and juvenile. So was tempted not to respond to this thread but fixing screens would go a long ways towards improving the sim overall so I wanted to offer this idea.

As far as coding, totally understand. I code very very little, Certified Scrum Master and Program Manager for a defense contractor. We do have some application development teams so I've gotten used to dealing with coders and the limitations.

About half the time when I tell my lead Engineer I need something he tells me its not as simple as I think. Yet, Sometimes when I ask for something I perceive as very complicated; he tells me its a super easy fix (or at least much less complicated than I think). So in the same vein and recognizing I have no idea how GLB2 is coded:

You already have screen plays differentiated in the playbook, would it be possible to identify the receptions on play ID'd as a screen and make it so that the receiver will not attempt a diving or jumping catch on those plays?
To me that would solve 85% of the screen issues, if the player cannot "catch in stride" on the screen play he'd simply drop it.

I actually think it would create a balance issue as well on your concern for unstoppable defenses, teams blitz and blitz alot, one of the most effective tools in football for that is the screen. The fear of a big play off a screen pass will slow down a pass rush in real life. In the alternative, perhaps you could make the screen pass slightly easier for the QB its one of the few passes that is "floated" in real life , perhaps penalty to pass power and bonus to pass technique?

Or perhaps to make it more succinct(My guess)
Short Term Hack: On plays Id'd as screens make it so that the target of the screen pass will not attempt a diving or jumping catch, only a catch in stride

Mid-Term Solutions?: Provide a bonus on screen plays for pass technique rolls, subtracting power.

Long Term Solution with significant testing: Create a QB SA (its a football skill) whereby the QB would have X percentage of throwing a "perfect" screen pass in-stride to the HB or WR, powered similar to wide load , in three increments 10% , 20% , and 40%.

Originally posted by william78
You already have screen plays differentiated in the playbook, would it be possible to identify the receptions on play ID'd as a screen and make it so that the receiver will not attempt a diving or jumping catch on those plays?
To me that would solve 85% of the screen issues, if the player cannot "catch in stride" on the screen play he'd simply drop it.

I actually think it would create a balance issue as well on your concern for unstoppable defenses, teams blitz and blitz alot, one of the most effective tools in football for that is the screen. The fear of a big play off a screen pass will slow down a pass rush in real life. In the alternative, perhaps you could make the screen pass slightly easier for the QB its one of the few passes that is "floated" in real life , perhaps penalty to pass power and bonus to pass technique?

Yeah, it's already differentiated, and it looks like there's already code to account for making it easier to catch or whatever for screen passes. Then again, there's a couple thousand lines of pass logic, so hopefully small tweaks to it don't break everything.

I'll mess around with it a bit right now and see how just turning down the velocity a bit works. Though I think the issue goes a lot deeper than that.

Right now, tweaking the pass itself is less important than stopping the QB from auto rolling into edge blitzers on screens. You can't even get the pass off to begin with. I'm sure if the hb and QB were quicker the play could be completed sooner... But from what I've seen against the nutty edge blitzes, how the pass and catch works isn't relevant due to the guaranteed sack that's coming.

Originally posted by Galithor
Right now, tweaking the pass itself is less important than stopping the QB from auto rolling into edge blitzers on screens. You can't even get the pass off to begin with. I'm sure if the hb and QB were quicker the play could be completed sooner... But from what I've seen against the nutty edge blitzes, how the pass and catch works isn't relevant due to the guaranteed sack that's coming.

Maybe make the QB go deeper rather than off to the side? Granted that is kinda unfair to the defense in a way. I assume the reason he shades to the left or right is because the oline is just jail breaking the dline to get prepared for the screen block.

The QB shading to one side is great pathing, don't know why you guys are complaining about that one

Originally posted by Galithor
Right now, tweaking the pass itself is less important than stopping the QB from auto rolling into edge blitzers on screens. You can't even get the pass off to begin with. I'm sure if the hb and QB were quicker the play could be completed sooner... But from what I've seen against the nutty edge blitzes, how the pass and catch works isn't relevant due to the guaranteed sack that's coming.

I think this is a mix between your builds and the timing of your playcall, whenever I run my wildcat, rarely ever is a screen an autosack.

corndog has feelings too

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
corndog has feelings too

Link or it didn't happen.

Originally posted by redbox13
Link or it didn't happen.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5156473?page=1

bye

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
I think this is a mix between your builds and the timing of your playcall, whenever I run my wildcat, rarely ever is a screen an autosack.



It is never an auto sack. Tough to say what it will be like with faster builds though both at QB and LB.

Originally posted by Corndog
Have you ever actually coded?

Recreating the human thought process is a bit more complex than taking a week to clean things up. Nine times out of ten when you fix one thing it breaks another or causes more issues. Making man coverage work logically has now created unstoppable defenses that get sacks every play.

Sure, it's simple enough to look at a couple broken plays, and say "fix it". It's usually also simple enough to go recreate those plays and fix the logic...and then it also breaks the logic in about half a dozen other places. It's not really as simple as looking at a vacuum and saying "he should have done this during this place", while that code will have him do something vastly different in very similar situations.

It doesn't take a very deep knowledge of football to realize that the HB should have went inside on that play. Writing code where the HB decides go inside on that play, while also leaving the possibility for him to make a poor read and go outside, with the same logic that will have him make a good read and go outside in a slightly different situation that also has the possibility for him to make a poor read and go inside instead is...pretty complex.

You could chalk it up to incompetence, but then, nobody anywhere has written an all inclusive AI that always makes the best decisions except for when it shouldn't make the best decision based on randomness. Humanity just works with what it has, and I continue to spend a good chunk of every night writing code to try to fix the numerous issues without creating new issues or exacerbating the others.

Yes, I understand the difficulties with coding. I've worked with programmers and all other types of IT guys in NOC. I can write a few short scripts and am attempting to learn node in the little spare time I have to sit down and learn a new hobby.

Again, I'm not saying it has to be perfect. I know you put in a lot of work. It's seems like you don't get much help, that has made me feel bad for you, not out of pity, but because I think you and the game deserve the help.

I think it's obvious from all the users posting so may bugs in the forums the game is not ready yet. The more games I watch to learn more about the game the more frustrating it gets. This is why I said a week should be taken out to just get this closer to finished. It's not my project, but if it were I still would nit have released it to the public in its current state.

Yeah, it kinda works, but personally I don't think it's anywhere near polished enough or downright sound in logic enough. That kind of stuff takes quite a bit of time, testing, and tweaking - and as you said is complicated and takes time. I'm saying give it that time that it needs and deserves instead of throwing it out there. This is hat led me to say that I think production started out great, then turned into let's just get it over with thing.

Man coverage should already have been logically assigned, and better positioned than it is now before release. There are obvious time management, tactics bugs, dc anomalies, skills under 25 and cap boost issues, player pathing, turnover bugs, and many, many others already put up in the forums, with a few new ones each day. Is this not proof it desperately needs attention?

It seems as though you keep taking my posts as flagrant attacks. I'm trying to help, it's just getting taken the wrong way. It has a ridiculous amount of potential. I'd love to see it get ironed out and become the greatest game ever. I don't think covering up or excusing things is going to get it there though.

I realize that pretty much everyone working on the game has probably caught everything I've seen and more before it was released... and they still put it out and were fine with it. I get it's beta, but I think most people already get my point that it's not, or shouldn't be. This needs another testing cycle, this is still an alpha game.

I get the feeling that production team has moved on to the other game and left you to take care of this baby. My measly weightless opinion is that is not a good idea, so I'm trying to push for this game to get some more TLC so it can realize its potential.

You can go ahead and try to defend what are not attacks, but I'm just trying to be unbiased in my criticism and try to improve things, because that's what I'm good at and I've got a damn good eye for detail.

Just to reiterate again, I don't think anyone is clamoring for perfection. I'm just trying to convince myself that this game is going to get where it should be anytime soon so I can spend $1,000 on it next season.

Originally posted by bhall43
Maybe make the QB go deeper rather than off to the side? Granted that is kinda unfair to the defense in a way. I assume the reason he shades to the left or right is because the oline is just jail breaking the dline to get prepared for the screen block.

QB needs to step up in the damn pocket honestly (and into his throws instead of sideways). A lot of times Ts actually sidestep the DE along sideline axis... pretty sure that's why people started calling it a pocket. It seems like the QB doesn't want anyone behind or on the side of him so he just superfluously runs around and gets himself sack that wouldn't have happened, defeating the purpose. Dropping deeper would be a bad idea. IRL not many QBs will drop back further than ~7 yards, they'd rather take a sack which is smart most of the time, unless they are mobile. Having them drop back further in GLB2 would make the problem worse IMO because the QB reading and timing is still a bit out of whack also.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
QB needs to step up in the damn pocket honestly (and into his throws instead of sideways). A lot of times Ts actually sidestep the DE along sideline axis... pretty sure that's why people started calling it a pocket. It seems like the QB doesn't want anyone behind or on the side of him so he just superfluously runs around and gets himself sack that wouldn't have happened, defeating the purpose. Dropping deeper would be a bad idea. IRL not many QBs will drop back further than ~7 yards, they'd rather take a sack which is smart most of the time, unless they are mobile. Having them drop back further in GLB2 would make the problem worse IMO because the QB reading and timing is still a bit out of whack also.

Why in the hell would he step up in the pocket on a screen pass?