Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Cuivienen
You could always create multis like GE and upvote/comment on your own suggestions...

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Originally posted by Rob.
So if you added more than one play per situation then you just control it with play priority?

I like that idea... you can pick how many plays you want per situation and just set the priority they are called in.

This sounds a lot like the GLB1 AI's.
They were an absolute pain to make individual AI's for opponents in.

All they need to do is allow us to choose the distance tag for each play in each situation.

So you have a 2WR page.

You choose whatever plays you want, and tag them however you want. So say you add cover 2 press, you can tag it as long instead of medium for 2WR, and now the playbook will use it as a long play for 2WR, but you can still tag it as medium for 4WR, or whatever you prefer for each situation. Suddenly you can use every play in the playbook because you don't have to worry about matching distance tags across all formations as you can simply choose the distance tags yourself for each formation.

The last thing I want to be doing is wading through an AI with hundreds of subsections every game, I wish I could show you my GLB1 AI's, they were extensive and an absolute pain, it made the game physically uncomfortable for me because of how much time and planning was required to scout opponents and match all of my custom plays to there individual tendencies. There's no reason to make the game as complicated as you want when the same thing can be achieved with a simple change that doesn't require us to fill out 5+ sections for each down.

This is probably why you keep getting downvoted when you suggest this, because you keep suggesting an overly complicated fix when the same thing can be achieved with just one simple tweak.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
This sounds a lot like the GLB1 AI's.
They were an absolute pain to make individual AI's for opponents in.

All they need to do is allow us to choose the distance tag for each play in each situation.

So you have a 2WR page.

You choose whatever plays you want, and tag them however you want. So say you add cover 2 press, you can tag it as long instead of medium for 2WR, and now the playbook will use it as a long play for 2WR, but you can still tag it as medium for 4WR, or whatever you prefer for each situation. Suddenly you can use every play in the playbook because you don't have to worry about matching distance tags across all formations as you can simply choose the distance tags yourself for each formation.

The last thing I want to be doing is wading through an AI with hundreds of subsections every game, I wish I could show you my GLB1 AI's, they were extensive and an absolute pain, it made the game physically uncomfortable for me because of how much time and planning was required to scout opponents and match all of my custom plays to there individual tendencies. There's no reason to make the game as complicated as you want when the same thing can be achieved with a simple change that doesn't require us to fill out 5+ sections for each down.

This is probably why you keep getting downvoted when you suggest this, because you keep suggesting an overly complicated fix when the same thing can be achieved with just one simple tweak.

There would be no AIs or tactic page at all. Only a playbook with plays for each WR set. The AI would be universal, not seen, and not user changeable. The only thing the user could change would be their distances like we have already.

There are no hidden sub anythings just a playbook page where you can pick what play/plays you want for each down and distance. No jostling with numbers all you do is set your distances(the same as we have now) and pick your plays below. First here would be a first down box on the left and the play pool on the right similar to what we have right now. You hit the plus button on the play you want and you have your first down play. Below your first down play would be the 2nd and very short play/plays click the play/plays you want and then pick your second and short play. The playbook would look pretty much identical to the current playbook. There would only be the playbook, no tactic page at all. All you do is set your distances and pick your plays.

Here is a rough example of what it would look like.

http://i65.tinypic.com/351too5.jpg

http://imgur.com/7rUR4uc

_OSIRIS_

This idea is NGTH in my view.

I'm not saying it's not an improvement. I didn't like it when you mentioned one play per distance. I do with multiple plays at each distance. That said, as the old saying goes, "I'm going to pull rank."

I'm a Software CEO and you're not. The issue is Coding time.

If this was suggested during the design phase of GLB2 a few years ago it could have been implemented. But doing it today is a black hole of coding time.

The entire Tactics Matrix would be trashed. The back end engine for picking plays would have to be re-written. You'd then need UI changes to the playbook to implement this.

Writing new code introduces new bugs. Writing new code that replaces existing code is bug hell. It is. Trust me. This could be a one week project. Or it could be a month, or even two. Would you like to see how badly my LZ team has missed internal estimates of coding time over the last three years? I've lived it and it's not fun.

So this suggestion is effectively pointless.

Now my suggestions are two-fold.

One, copy and paste existing D plays to the playbook with more Distance tags. It's adding Content; not Code. This suggestion increases the size of the Playbook by 3x. With hundreds of teams playing 30 games a season, Defensive play calling options and results would explode as a result of all the newly possible permutations. Well it could at least. People will still spam 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger in Rookie probably.

Two, changing the tag system so that the First logic cut is 3 variables instead of 5. It would be Short/Medium/Long. Distance.
Then adding a new 2nd Logic cut where Direction is looked at - Inside or Outside.
The existing 2nd Logic cut of Zone is moved to 3rd.
The existing 3rd Logic cut of Blitz is moved to 4th.

Overall, this is a small coding addition that is consistent with the logic and resources currently in place.

If my suggestion is 1X in time&difficulty, yours is 10X. It could be 100X. That's the problem.

I do like it better and I do think it's easier, especially for new agents. So grats on the idea. I just don't think there's a prayer in hell of convincing Bort/Cdog that it's worth the coding time when they won't implement my suggestion that I've been advocating for several seasons now.

The reason I brought up GLB1 is because they should pretty much have everything from there. The playbook is nothing more than packages from the outputs in a pretty package. It would take a little work but it's not completely new to them. 2WR took me under 5 minutes to do.

http://imgur.com/PWcHmHl

Originally posted by Xars
This idea is NGTH in my view.

We already know he posted it in the suggestions forum.

So rather than fix things proper to retain noobs, stop burning out vets, and making a polished product they just create another big band-aid ball because it is the easy thing to do? I feel sorry for them.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
There would be no AIs or tactic page at all. Only a playbook with plays for each WR set. The AI would be universal, not seen, and not user changeable. The only thing the user could change would be their distances like we have already.

Some of us want to run more than one play in each situation, and want to have control over the probability of each play being chosen.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
Some of us want to run more than one play in each situation, and want to have control over the probability of each play being chosen.

Isn't that easy enough to do with this suggestion? You could add a couple plays to a bucket and use the priority stars from the off playbook.

I thought we covered that, I even made it visual.

http://imgur.com/7rUR4uc

I commend you Osiris. You as an agent are rocking around 98 in heart. Your sprinting must be suffering as a result but I love the passion!

Edit: And FWIW I believe it would be a great change as well even if it may be an unlikely change. Something definitely needs to give and defensive Gameplanning is a rather large pill to swallow in its current form.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
There are no hidden sub anythings just a playbook page where you can pick what play/plays you want for each down and distance. No jostling with numbers all you do is set your distances(the same as we have now) and pick your plays below. First here would be a first down box on the left and the play pool on the right similar to what we have right now. You hit the plus button on the play you want and you have your first down play. Below your first down play would be the 2nd and very short play/plays click the play/plays you want and then pick your second and short play. The playbook would look pretty much identical to the current playbook. There would only be the playbook, no tactic page at all. All you do is set your distances and pick your plays.

I'm in favor of fixing the defense play calling system and I like the simplicity of your proposal. Wouldn't you need a simple tactics page to go with it in order to set your distances for "very short," " short," etc, etc?