Warrior General Games

This game makes me lol. Seem intent on doing the opposite of the reasonable thing.

This is supposed to be a football sim. In football, a one dimensional offense will suffer. So GLB makes multi dimensional offenses better to back door to that outcome.

TBF, I get it from a game design theory stand point. Bonuses are always better than penalties for players.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
This game makes me lol. Seem intent on doing the opposite of the reasonable thing.

This is supposed to be a football sim. In football, a one dimensional offense will suffer. So GLB makes multi dimensional offenses better to back door to that outcome.

TBF, I get it from a game design theory stand point. Bonuses are always better than penalties for players.

I think they were in a tough spot and to do it like this made the most sense. If they penalized teams for being 1 dimensional you would have a bunch reset. This way you just give teams an incentive to not spam plays.

Well, they should buff defense a bit more too so you end up needing the balanced bonus.

Also helps casual and new OCs who are less likely to have a highly tuned, one dimensional offense. I don't mind helping them out.

Damn, glad I made this S* rushing FB

<--- probably going to just stick with my current O. At least then it can be used as a comparison.

The thing is, flooding you're playbook with bad plays is counter productive. Really all this changes for me is all the maybe plays that I trimmed from the playbook get put back in.

In other words I don't see this changing playbooks as drastically as it first appears

too early to tell - but I agree -- the bonus would have to be significant to justify mediocre plays.

wish we know what the criteria is...

inside run/outside run/pass?

inside/outside/short/medium/long?

all of those in different formations?

If this is true look for the CPU's at rookie to be knocking off teams left and right out the gate

Originally posted by klocc1
If this is true look for the CPU's at rookie to be knocking off teams left and right out the gate

Oh dear Lord...

I kind of wish they gave us some plays that are good against some sets. Make it so if you're a DC with a good team that fits your scheme you can 0 a team out against a predictable offense.

Originally posted by TehKyou
The thing is, flooding you're playbook with bad plays is counter productive. Really all this changes for me is all the maybe plays that I trimmed from the playbook get put back in.

In other words I don't see this changing playbooks as drastically as it first appears

I disagree.

There's a lot of teams out there running mediocre plays (for them) because they see good teams with players built for those routes make those plays great. Not every route in every play is built equally, and some builds run those routes better than others (don't just mean route tech and things like that).

This change encourages middling teams to find out what routes work better for their builds. Offensive experimentation to discourage copy pasta is good for the game.

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
I disagree.

There's a lot of teams out there running mediocre plays (for them) because they see good teams with players built for those routes make those plays great. Not every route in every play is built equally, and some builds run those routes better than others (don't just mean route tech and things like that).

This change encourages middling teams to find out what routes work better for their builds. Offensive experimentation to discourage copy pasta is good for the game.



What was discouraging them before? That doesn't even make sense.

Originally posted by bhall43
What was discouraging them before?

Laziness.

Right. I doubt the bonus of variety makes bad plays good. So they will still be running middling plays struggling to contend while the good teams add a couple more workable plays into the mix and work people even more.