Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Xavori
the other team should start to anticipate what is going to happen.

You should have anticipated that when you scouted out the other team.

+1

Originally posted by bhall43
You should have anticipated that when you scouted out the other team.

I'm pretty sure I've dominated your teams enough that you know fully well I anticipate what the other guy is going to do

I mean, it's not like you freaked out about scrimmage or anything

This is about encouraging play calling variety without requiring it.

I don't know what teams you speak of. Daddy is the only team I know you to have ever played.

Originally posted by Xavori
Uh, no. I'm kinda assuming each play during the sim is an object (cuz why wouldn't you program it like that) which means each play will be able to store it own copy of RepeatEffect. Or, if plays are in a database, then the play would be a record and then you'd just make a field for RepeatEffect.

Either way, that part's easy.

Ok bro, let's debate about the finer points of coding a system neither of us have seen...

OP Gets +1 from me,

Repetitive playcalling take a fair amount of the fun of the game out.

Thing is... How useful is a small awr bonus... not sure if that's all that the defenses deserve when O is spamming OP plays.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Thing is... How useful is a small awr bonus... not sure if that's all that the defenses deserve when O is spamming OP plays.

Again, I'm not trying to fix the balance between offense and defense. This suggestion is aimed squarely at encouraging play calling diversity.

And I think it'd do that as there are very few teams that are so good they can run any play they want even if the opposition is going to make all their awareness checks immediately.

Then why not require say 10 plays per section of the playbook --- and reduce the effect of 'play priority' - that would get you the diversity you're looking for (which I support).

Originally posted by TxSteve
Then why not require say 10 plays per section of the playbook --- and reduce the effect of 'play priority' - that would get you the diversity you're looking for (which I support).




Playbook
Plays 1-9 Outside Run defense
Play 10 DAG

Tactics
100 Short Pass

The reality is that there are only about a half dozen total defensive plays that are not complete spazmonkey.

what is wrong with the current system? Im just curious

Originally posted by TxSteve
Then why not require say 10 plays per section of the playbook --- and reduce the effect of 'play priority' - that would get you the diversity you're looking for (which I support).




this does nothing. one can still force 1 or 2 plays without the silly play frequency bars everyone goes nuts over.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
Ok bro, let's debate about the finer points of coding a system neither of us have seen...

I've been thinking this through the entire thread.
None of you has any idea what the code for this actually looks like... fact.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
I've been thinking this through the entire thread.
None of you has any idea what the code for this actually looks like... fact.

True. But I'm assuming Corndog and/or Bort are fairly competent and as such, would use common structures that make designing, reading, and maintaining code easier.

I mean, sure, they might actually have coded each play with all the code needed to run that play as part of the play and had variables that are unique to that play, but I'd guess it's more likely that the play calls functions and pulls data stored separately from the play itself, and that each play uses the same basic structure with the same variable naming and pulls from the same database that stores things like player data, playbook data, etc.