Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
really bhall? then why don't teams run their QB more now? because they get the crap beaten out of them more than a half back or full back does right? because they aren't padded up the same and they aren't physically built to withstand the impact right?

sounds like a damage issue to me and all GLB2 has is morale or fatigue to simulate that

Corndog - I've never been anything but civil and constructive towards you ever. if you don't like the proposal then fine, I'm proposing a way to simulate injury risk in a game without injury and in a way which doesn't require mass changes to the sim overall.

the approach you took was counter to the kind of software practices we use in my industry, but I'm not the one flaming you over pancakes etc - I tried to be constructive

I assume you'd like me to keep paying you 50 bucks a season to play this game so I'm baffled why you'd just be an ass like that. This is a business right? you want customers? I don't really understand the business model of being an ass for no reason really. I'm probably not going to renew my team and most of my players (maybe not all) at this point just because it's not clear to me that the cost/benefit works out and I don't have a good idea where the game may be going. Maybe you figure that means I don't rate civility.

look i'm happy to withdraw my suggestion, it was just an idea that didn't require mass coding I thought and would allow for some more testing.

If you think the game is working the way you want then you should say so outright and be done with it. You've opened pandora's box by starting up the nerf wagon, that isn't my fault. But you set the precedent that if you let the playerbase whine about a perceived problem (QB sweeps) that you'll make a change to appease them.



Uh there are an endless amount of reasons that have nothing to do with how this game is coded. I mean the 49ers don't run kaepernick into the ground because there isn't kaepernick 2 coming in to spell him with an injury. Really sick and tired of these kinda stupid comparisons....

Not sure how me saying a suggestion isn't very good is being an uncivil asshole : /

The only reason that suggestion came up was because someone abusing the play wanted to "nerf" it without actually nerfing it at all. The idea had 6 likes and 4 dislikes, and I'm guessing at least half of the "likes" were people on his team abusing the play along with him.

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
really bhall? then why don't teams run their QB more now? because they get the crap beaten out of them more than a half back or full back does right? because they aren't padded up the same and they aren't physically built to withstand the impact right?

sounds like a damage issue to me and all GLB2 has is morale or fatigue to simulate that

Corndog - I've never been anything but civil and constructive towards you ever. if you don't like the proposal then fine, I'm proposing a way to simulate injury risk in a game without injury and in a way which doesn't require mass changes to the sim overall.

the approach you took was counter to the kind of software practices we use in my industry, but I'm not the one flaming you over pancakes etc - I tried to be constructive

I assume you'd like me to keep paying you 50 bucks a season to play this game so I'm baffled why you'd just be an ass like that. This is a business right? you want customers? I don't really understand the business model of being an ass for no reason really. I'm probably not going to renew my team and most of my players (maybe not all) at this point just because it's not clear to me that the cost/benefit works out and I don't have a good idea where the game may be going. Maybe you figure that means I don't rate civility.

look i'm happy to withdraw my suggestion, it was just an idea that didn't require mass coding I thought and would allow for some more testing.

If you think the game is working the way you want then you should say so outright and be done with it. You've opened pandora's box by starting up the nerf wagon, that isn't my fault. But you set the precedent that if you let the playerbase whine about a perceived problem (QB sweeps) that you'll make a change to appease them.



Just stay in ur thread then pls, thx.

My suggestions have nothing to do with ur BS

Originally posted by Corndog
Not sure how me saying a suggestion isn't very good is being an uncivil asshole : /

The only reason that suggestion came up was because someone abusing the play wanted to "nerf" it without actually nerfing it at all. The idea had 6 likes and 4 dislikes, and I'm guessing at least half of the "likes" were people on his team abusing the play along with him.
Your psychic powers seem to be nearly as good as your ability to balance games, which in turn rival the professionalism of your customer interactions.

Originally posted by JudeMorrigan
Your psychic powers seem to be nearly as good as your ability to balance games, which in turn rival the professionalism of your customer interactions.

Thanks.

Originally posted by peeti
Just stay in ur thread then pls, thx.

My suggestions have nothing to do with ur BS
What exactly is "his" thread? You people DO realize that the loungers aren't actually a hive mind, right? That Xavori and Rom are two completely different people?

Originally posted by sieg76
Counter counter proposal.

Make it so that a high percentage of running QBs get caught for dog fighting and miss entire seasons at a time.

Quincy's problem was drugs, not dog fighting, so your suggestion isn't realistic at all.

RomFox, Corndog is not someone you are going to have a constructive conversation with. Let's review a couple comments from yesterday.

Originally posted by Corndog
Originally posted by Xavori

- Slightly lowered baseline blocking levels

By slightly I can only guess that the Maizehound meant "Nerf Power blocking completely". This change, more than anything, is what really wrecked Yorick at first, and I suspect plays a huge role in TxSteve's observations on pancakes.

It was less than 5 blocking power. If you had 40 blocking power, you lost THREE blocking power.

Kind of hard to take your post serious when you're overreacting, overanalyzing, and making mountains out of molehills.

Let's review for a second that last line. Overreacting? Allegedly 3 changes were made to the running game mechanics for 3 plays in goal line that resulted in unusually high yardage. 1 formation, 3 plays = change 2 fundamental mechanics of blocking, 1 on Defense AI, all on game day and mid season without testing! That's not overacting at all.

Overanalyzing. I would love to say Corndog actually did his homework prior to devising the fixes, but I'm fairly sure that is not the case. If he did overanalyze anything it was bad information which resulted in bad solutions, and that is a best case scenario in defense of Corndog.

Mountains out of molehills. Considering when asked he said he had to make a decision between screwing over the run teams to save GLB2. Because you know, in a universe of infinite possibilities, it was clear that the only solution here was to amputate the legs to save GLB2. This was all backed up by the numerous petitions posted in this forum by players saying if he did not fix it right now, they were going to quit. Oh wait those posts don't exist. But still he had to do this horrible fix to save GLB2!

Another thing that is kind of amusing about all this is his insistence that it was only 3-5 points. What he fails to understand or consider in this argument is that blocking interactions have changed as well and with the alleged fixes we are told about they may be exacerbating the effects of various changes done. Assuming he did implement the code he says and there were not any unintended consequences.

Originally posted by Corndog
Originally posted by Xavori
Except that when I watch replays of post-nerf games and pre-nerf games, I see dramatic differences in the success of runs, and then I go looking for what seems to have changed.
Whatever you think you see is irrelevant.

I changed baseline power blocking values from 25 to 20.

Ah another gem! So guys there you have it. All your empirical observations as players of the sim are irrelevant. But if the players observations are irrelevant, then how did we get to a point of implementing this horrible fix? How do we build dots that are effective and make improvements and adjustments if all our observations are irrelevant? Clearly another case of Corndog wanting to cherry pick observations he agrees with versus observations he doesn't.

When you take a step back and just look at his arguments, they are just bad and fundamentally broken. I see a lot of pride and ego in his posts as well. I'd even go so far as to say he doesn't have the humility and character to own up to his own wrongs in handling this. Which makes me think he will quietly make changes to save face. Because sooner or later he's going to have to do something about the run game.

oh boy...

Originally posted by IotB
Corndog sucks. Blah. Blah. Blah.

I'm not really ready to dogpile Maizehound yet.

I think he screwed up in the case of nerfing the run game, but I don't think that makes him a bad person or in any way shows routine bad judgement. One mistake does not an idiot make.

It's also pretty normal for him to be trying to defend his changes. That's just being human. One of the most difficult things for someone who's as awesome as I am was accepting that sometimes I make mistakes and that it might be a good idea to listen to the ideas of others. For a mere mortal like Corny, that lesson might take far longer to sink in.

Now, it was definitely eye rolling for him to disregard my observations, especially since they're mirrored by pretty much every other run first GM/owner/OC. Heck, just look at the Queen City/Doinitin Djibouti game and the fact that two of the most successful run teams in the game managed to hold each other to about 3 yards per carry. Or the fact that QB Rollout which was a 40-50% TFL but still popular because of it's homerun chance is now even more popular because most running plays are now at the 40-50% (and some are prolly 100%) without that homerun chance.

But kicking poor Corny for one mistake isn't really going to be conducive to having a chance at getting the running game restored, nor is it at all helpful for any future discussions we might want to have with him.

Originally posted by sieg76
oh boy...

I know, right?

This is one case were I wish everyone in GLB2 knew IotB like we do.

Protip for non-Loungers: most of the names of players on Men Who Herd Cats are poking fun at IotB and the oh-so-many political arguments we've uh, tried to have with him over the last 15 or so years...

Originally posted by Corndog
That "suggestion" was lame when it was suggested, and still is.

Perhaps I am too sensitive? Didn't seem lame to me since it tries to simulate the chance for injury and not having kaepernick 2 in case one gets hurt.

Regardless we need to play the sim we have since I think the message is "working as intended"

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
we need to play the sim we have

Do you really want to play the sim we deserve?

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
Perhaps I am too sensitive? Didn't seem lame to me since it tries to simulate the chance for injury and not having kaepernick 2 in case one gets hurt.


There are skills, toughness, heart, conditioning, intimidation, and many SAs more than capable of dealing with or creating the same results of your proposed change. That's why it's not worth doing. It's a "fix your build" thing.

If a team's not happy with QBs handling tackles well, they can absolutely build to make such tackles more punishing.