Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Time Trial

You can't choose a playbook for 3rd down plays in GLB2... except that you can if you trick the system (for passing plays). Just throw whatever passes you want into the Very Long pass playbook and only call the Very Long playbook in those situations (even if every play in the Very Long playbook is actually short passing routes).



This really isn't true at all.

Originally posted by Time Trial
You can't choose a playbook for 3rd down plays in GLB2... except that you can if you trick the system (for passing plays). Just throw whatever passes you want into the Very Long pass playbook and only call the Very Long playbook in those situations (even if every play in the Very Long playbook is actually short passing routes).

And as counterpoint, I offer this 3rd and 16 pass play...

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/53951/3355993

Originally posted by
As far as defense, I guess I'm not the one to ask, but the fact that your D options do not reflect the O options is a pretty big problem imo. Again, it is all about choosing plays and then tricking your AI into calling the play that you want in the situation that you want it. This is a product of the default "zone" and "blitz" labeling system that they went with.


The problems calling D aren't labeling. It's the inability to actually call from the right set of defensive plays for a specific down, distance, and offensive formation. Instead, it's just dice rolls to hope you get a good defense unless you so thoroughly gimmick your playbook/tactics that you are forced to run nothing but two or three plays max per formation, and that only works against specialist offenses.

Originally posted by Time Trial
GLB took years to get this stale.

This is GLB2. I think we were all optimistic but already feeling a little stale when it started.

I don't even like baseball and I wish Yukiko was a Superstar Pitcher right now.

And frankly, part of the reason this game is the way it is now is their business model. As thankful as I am, letting people transfer FP was and is a terrible idea. You are forced with a kind of game like this to make at least a majority of your coding decisions towards revenue, and frankly the game engine is not revenue generating. With so many people trying to burn through FP they accrued often for free in the original game, and so few ways to use FP in this game, I have to imagine they are crossing their fingers right now hoping the whales keep paying for their boosts.

I find the "stale" argument rather hilarious. Why wasn't GLB1 stale into its 3rd season? Because not even the developers knew where the end game mark was, you were constantly trying to get the highest leveled players in the game through recruiting or just blind thievery, and people largely had no idea what worked besides speed and strength. It wasn't like the games were super close and great, it wasn't like people weren't gaming whatever they could to win, it wasn't even like the sim was all that super interesting. (i was mostly just watching the scrolling PBP at that point because there was no advanced AI)

While this game probably won't get near the advanced AI GLB1 sits on (and for good reason really) it still has the opportunity to grow in all the other areas. Things aren't set in stone. We haven't even ran through one full set of tiers yet. Relax, have some fun, and play it like the game it is. Because if you can't just have fun what is the point?

Originally posted by foshizzel17
yes?



but the real answer is no.

So you have your answer and you're still logged in..

Originally posted by Xavori
The problems calling D aren't labeling. It's the inability to actually call from the right set of defensive plays for a specific down, distance, and offensive formation. Instead, it's just dice rolls to hope you get a good defense unless you so thoroughly gimmick your playbook/tactics that you are forced to run nothing but two or three plays max per formation, and that only works against specialist offenses.




So much wrong in this post.

Also don't understand what TT is saying about 3rd and Long playbooks either, completely agree with the defensive tactics complaint though.

Originally posted by Time Trial
...

Damn! Sounds just like the original except they managed to remove the special sauce all together!

Originally posted by Parab00n


So much wrong in this post.

Also don't understand what TT is saying about 3rd and Long playbooks either, completely agree with the defensive tactics complaint though.



1st and goal from the 2. Offense comes out in 4 WR's. You're stuck with only plays you've put on the 4 WR page. Luckily you have a good inside run stuffing play on that page, and you've allowed your tactics to call run stuffing on 1st downs.
1st and 10 from the 30. Offense comes out in 4 WR's. The sim calls that run stuffing play you have to have for ANY 4 WR set leaving WR3 wide open for an easy completion.

No way can you game tactics around that.

In fact, as soon as you start gaming tactics to not call the wrong play at the wrong time, you start cutting huge chunks out of your defensive options. Want to be sure to call a specific play against a specific formation and down? Sure, you can game it to do that so long as you put NO OTHER PLAYS OF THAT TYPE ON THAT PAGE IN THE PLAYBOOK.

For example, let's say you scout an opponent who likes that HB Pitch from Trips (3 WR) in very short and short. And after scrims and experimenting, you find that your high Blitz Aware MLB and LOLB totally eat that play up when you run Under Sam Mike Blitz 1. Unfortunately, that defensive play leaves the strong side dangerously thin, and the team you're playing also likes running Trips Left Slants when in medium or longer distance. Against that play, you're pretty sure you want to run Dogs All Go instead in order to pressure the QB, and you absolutely don't want to run Under Sam Mike Blitz 1 since the HB ends up wide open every time.

Guess what? No way to do that. Both Under Sam Mike Blitz 1 and Dogs All Go are short pass/run man blitzes. You flat out cannot tell the sim to differentiate between them, and if you put them both on your 3 WR page, it's going to be blind luck that gets the right play call. So instead of taking the plays you think would be best for what the offense is throwing at you, you have to take some compromise play.

That's what's wrong with how defense calls. You can't be specific to a situation. Everything is about finding stuff that doesn't just flat out fail, rather than trying to find what would be best.

Originally posted by Xavori
1st and goal from the 2. Offense comes out in 4 WR's. You're stuck with only plays you've put on the 4 WR page. Luckily you have a good inside run stuffing play on that page, and you've allowed your tactics to call run stuffing on 1st downs.
1st and 10 from the 30. Offense comes out in 4 WR's. The sim calls that run stuffing play you have to have for ANY 4 WR set leaving WR3 wide open for an easy completion.

No way can you game tactics around that.

In fact, as soon as you start gaming tactics to not call the wrong play at the wrong time, you start cutting huge chunks out of your defensive options. Want to be sure to call a specific play against a specific formation and down? Sure, you can game it to do that so long as you put NO OTHER PLAYS OF THAT TYPE ON THAT PAGE IN THE PLAYBOOK.

For example, let's say you scout an opponent who likes that HB Pitch from Trips (3 WR) in very short and short. And after scrims and experimenting, you find that your high Blitz Aware MLB and LOLB totally eat that play up when you run Under Sam Mike Blitz 1. Unfortunately, that defensive play leaves the strong side dangerously thin, and the team you're playing also likes running Trips Left Slants when in medium or longer distance. Against that play, you're pretty sure you want to run Dogs All Go instead in order to pressure the QB, and you absolutely don't want to run Under Sam Mike Blitz 1 since the HB ends up wide open every time.

Guess what? No way to do that. Both Under Sam Mike Blitz 1 and Dogs All Go are short pass/run man blitzes. You flat out cannot tell the sim to differentiate between them, and if you put them both on your 3 WR page, it's going to be blind luck that gets the right play call. So instead of taking the plays you think would be best for what the offense is throwing at you, you have to take some compromise play.

That's what's wrong with how defense calls. You can't be specific to a situation. Everything is about finding stuff that doesn't just flat out fail, rather than trying to find what would be best.




Agree on the defensive tactics as I've said numerous times...but you aren't asking for that. You are asking for GLB1 play calling and you won't ever get it here. I'm amazed at how many times you have changed your argument on play calling though, your persistence is impressive.

Originally posted by Parab00n

Agree on the defensive tactics as I've said numerous times...but you aren't asking for that. You are asking for GLB1 play calling and you won't ever get it here. I'm amazed at how many times you have changed your argument on play calling though, your persistence is impressive.

I don't know GLB1 play calling or why it's so bad, so that argument is lost on me.

As for me changing how I'm making my argument...duh. If I try one tactic, and it doesn't convince you, then it'd be stupid to just keep repeating myself. Instead, I need to find a way to frame my argument that convinces you that increasing the strategic element and reducing the luck element makes for a better game.

Want to try board game references maybe? Two of the highest rated board games of all time are Puerto Rico and Agricola. Know what they have in common? No dice. There is a random element to start the game, but after that, it's all you versus the other people, not chance.

GLB1 playcalling isn't bad, it is just a totally advanced AI based on formations and tags to specific players. Something you won't be getting here.

The DAI doesn't need a ton of advancement to be fun. It just needs more viable plays (and if Corndog is serious about adding them I wouid be happy to start a thread and go to town on the GLB1 d play creator to make some fun options.) and a mirror of the RZ and specific situation AI to the offense AI.

Originally posted by bhall43
GLB1 playcalling isn't bad, it is just a totally advanced AI based on formations and tags to specific players. Something you won't be getting here.

The DAI doesn't need a ton of advancement to be fun. It just needs more viable plays (and if Corndog is serious about adding them I wouid be happy to start a thread and go to town on the GLB1 d play creator to make some fun options.) and a mirror of the RZ and specific situation AI to the offense AI.

I'm not looking for anything that advanced (I'd take it if offered tho )

All I want are playsheets. Instead of split playbook/tactics, let me stick the plays I want onto the specific situation and formation. It'd be fine to keep the 2 play minimum even and just use priority settings to tweak.

Heck, I think it'd be easier to understand as well. Instead of having one page where you set plays by #WR's, and then an entirely different page where you try to match percentages to the tags on those plays, you just have a single page where the plays themselves are at in the situations they belong.

Originally posted by Xavori
I don't know GLB1 play calling or why it's so bad, so that argument is lost on me.

As for me changing how I'm making my argument...duh. If I try one tactic, and it doesn't convince you, then it'd be stupid to just keep repeating myself. Instead, I need to find a way to frame my argument that convinces you that increasing the strategic element and reducing the luck element makes for a better game.

Want to try board game references maybe? Two of the highest rated board games of all time are Puerto Rico and Agricola. Know what they have in common? No dice. There is a random element to start the game, but after that, it's all you versus the other people, not chance.

MtG and D&D are also pretty popular and they are filled to the brim with luck.

double post

Honestly if the playbook gets any more specific for defense I ask that you up the minimum to 5 plays in the book rather than 2.