Warrior General Games

Originally posted by nortobc
I really wish ya'll would implement the option.

Wishbone formations as well?

When I made my single wing post, I'd pretty much assumed no way could I also ask for logic to be added for run/pass options. I was pretty sure that's asking for too much. However, using existing logic and just 'pretending' that the quarterback was the single wing tailback, I could put together some running and passing plays from the formation.

Originally posted by burn_209
Originally posted by nortobc
I really wish ya'll would implement the option.
How are they going to do that on a browser game.....come on now

I hear that Corndog guy is pretty smart. He can figure out a way.

Seriously it wouldn't be that hard. The QB would use his awareness to decide when to pitch/handoff and when to keep.

Originally posted by Xavori
Wishbone formations as well?


I would love for the wishbone to appear as well.

Originally posted by nortobc
I hear that Corndog guy is pretty smart. He can figure out a way.

Seriously it wouldn't be that hard. The QB would use his awareness to decide when to pitch/handoff and when to keep.

Corndog don't care.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Corndog don't care.

That would have been funnier as:

Corndog W. Bush doesn't care about football people.

I have been writing code everyday for the last 10 years, so I know how software works. I have never coded a game engine, but I know the option can be implemented. ANYTHING can be implemented. Bort just needs to roll up the sleeves and dig a little deeper into the code. Maybe refactor a little bit while he is in there and make the game better.

That being said...this is a great game and I'm glad to be a part of it.

Anything can be "implemented". But that isn't the point. Are you watching games?

Originally posted by nortobc
Maybe refactor a little bit while he is in there and make the game better.

I don't think code refactoring means what you think it does.

lol....ok. It's probably hard to implement a new feature like the option because the code base is several years old and likely "spaghetti" code. Of course, that is assuming the engine was taking from GLB1 and expanded upon. Refactoing would make the code easier to maintain/modify and less complex....hopefully.

Of you can call it "technical debt" like we do in the agile world.

Anyway, I know nothing about the code base so I can't really comment. Which is why I added a on my post.

Since this is the most relevant thread.

The most time consuming part of making new plays is the art. I've thrown together five plays for a new formation I'm testing my hand at (not single wing), and it's only taken about an hour. Play art will take forever though, and I'm guessing passing plays will be a bigger PITA than running plays.

Whatever happened to those formations catch was testing? Looked like he redid my quick art job on the ones he teased on twitter?

Also it's wishbone right? Cuz wishbone seems like a fun add.

Originally posted by bhall43
Also it's wishbone right? Cuz wishbone seems like a fun add.

Nope.

It's similar, though.

Originally posted by Corndog
Since this is the most relevant thread.

The most time consuming part of making new plays is the art. I've thrown together five plays for a new formation I'm testing my hand at (not single wing), and it's only taken about an hour. Play art will take forever though, and I'm guessing passing plays will be a bigger PITA than running plays.

Really?

Hasn't anyone done the math to compare play logic to the artwork and then created Photoshop macros to place relevant objects?