Warrior General Games

What I don't understand is how this will help them fix the blocking code. Can't they run "basic" D on the test server and determine what's going wrong there? How will getting rid of the DPC or limiting it greatly improve their ability to fix the sim? Can't they just ignore people whining about sacks while they work on getting the job done?

Maybe disguise blitz is a problem that needs to be looked at, but other than that I think most of the issues are preventable by keeping the blocking TE in on the left side and countering with some rushes and screens. If the defense runs into a team that runs certain things well they have to try to counter it, why shouldn't the offense?

I can't find it now through the pages and pages of this thread and the other, but somewhere I think I read from Catch(and this is paraphrased) that the O-line logic can't be fixed to counter the exploit blitzes, so instead the limiting of player movement in DPC will allow the current logic to hold up better.

part of the problem lies with the QB imo...

QBs in this game get rid of the ball in less than 2 seconds. If they slowed the QB targeting time down, the d-line would have time to beat the o-line without exploits. Maybe slow down the QB drop back, before targeting starts. If the front 4 could generate some pressure on the QB, then blitzing become less common in general.

Usually it's a HB or FB that picks up an added blitzer IRL, not super o-linemen with eyes in the back of their heads that block 3 guys at once.

The D-line uses stunts IRL too, maybe add a menu for which D-lineman is supposed to engage which o-lineman. Like let the DT loop to engage the RG, while the NT slants into the C and LG.

The real problem is that IRL if a team ran the same exact play 100 times in a row, the opposing team would do something about it. They'd shift players, or make substitutions, or use different plays. In the sim right now, neither team reacts to what the other does. The offense can use the same plays over and over, and the defense can use the same "exploit" over and over. The exploit wouldn't be an exploit if the offense would react. Maybe shift the HB to the left of the QB instead of always being on the right, so that if a ROLB come busting through the d-line, the HB will be in a good position to pick him up.

Maybe that can be a function of coaches, if when that system goes in. Better coaches make better adjustments faster.

An improved tagging system would also help. Let the o-line be able to create match-ups against the specific defensive players. It's pretty easy to tell when scouting, who the power/strength guys are and who the mobility/agility/speed guys are. If the o-line could create more suitable match-ups and double teams.

Maybe that could be a function of coaches.

I am an OC, and I think this is a huge step backwards for the game if we remove DPC. The obvious solution would be to create OPC. I would definitely consider quitting if this were to happen.. it would be one big Casual League again. This coming from a season 1 vet.

I say remove DPC. Or add OPC.

Originally posted by Lout84
I am an OC, and I think this is a huge step backwards for the game if we remove DPC. The obvious solution would be to create OPC. I would definitely consider quitting if this were to happen.. it would be one big Casual League again. This coming from a season 1 vet.

+1

Ie: we may not be very good at our jobs so we have to lower the expectations of our paying customers.
Come on man-up !!! dig in and get it right, if you are not able to fix it maybe you have the wrong guys on the job. You need to get a spark going at GLB like within the first 3 -4 seasons when we had genuine excitement.. You guys are too worried about fixing exploits and fairness. This is a GAME , that is what games are about, thats why they make cheat code magazines. No body who puts money into entertainment wants to get to a net result of boring and average. Boring and average will put you out of business very fast in this year of 2010. Too much competition. GLB I still like you but I feel like you no longer like me the consumer.

the first 3 -4 seasons when we had genuine excitement..

Yah!

Originally posted by Dub J
Originally posted by ibflounder

You guys are too worried about fixing exploits and fairness.






QF Epic lulz

If you add an OPC, then you need to allow the defense to chose personnel based on offensive personnel in a game.

I'm not talking about choosing to play a nickel when the scat back and receiving TE are in the game so you can get the LOLB1 or MLB1 in the game. I'm talking about if I'm the DC and want to use a 4-3 vs. strong I, I would need to be able to put different defensive players in the game based on tagging.

I also want to be able to chose to change my defensive alignment and blitz based on if the TE is lined up the the left or the right.

Originally posted by Bort
TBH we could add some more formations like 4-4 by adding more limitations to the d line, since it would be far easier to test against.

The main things that I find dumb are the completely unrealistic D line setups some people make with a DE way outside on one side and the DT shifted way the other way, etc. Does not resemble a real formation in any way.

You mean like one DE sitting on the outside shoulder of the left tackle and then a DT sitting on the outside shoulder of the right guard and one other player on the line of scrimmage a couple of yards outside the strong-side TE, then a couple of recessed players playing a couple/few yards back off the line of scrimmage where LB's typically line up, and then a couple more LB's in the box area? It's called the 4-3 Flex, and was popularized by Tom Landry's Dallas Cowboys

Or, hey, maybe even move past the 1960's and 1970's and you'll discover that it's even possible to find defenses where D-linemen drop into coverage, which tends to leave huge gaps between the remaining D-line on the line of scrimmage.

Or, maybe if you want to get really modern, you might want to try and catch a rerun of the Bills-Patriots game in Dec. 2009, where the Bill Bellichick's Patriots reintroduced their "walk-around" defense, which features no (that's ZERO) interior D-linemen.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view/20091221walk_works_wonders_to_puzzle_bills/
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/rap_sheet/index.php/category/week-15/

Or maybe you're going to take the position that modern football formations like these are just a hoax, obviously "dumb" and "completely unrealistic" made-up for TV lies perpetuated on the American people...

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
If you add an OPC, then you need to allow the defense to chose personnel based on offensive personnel in a game.

I'm not talking about choosing to play a nickel when the scat back and receiving TE are in the game so you can get the LOLB1 or MLB1 in the game. I'm talking about if I'm the DC and want to use a 4-3 vs. strong I, I would need to be able to put different defensive players in the game based on tagging.

I also want to be able to chose to change my defensive alignment and blitz based on if the TE is lined up the the left or the right.



You can already choose your personnel based on players on the field (HB/FB/TE and QB). It's part of inputs.

TE is always lined up on the right. Strong side is always right. Period.

Just have 3 leagues ...

Casual = for guys who just want a the percentages based D (like it is now)

Advanced Casual = for guys who want to pick canned D plays - like what Bort/Catch22 and co wanted prior to the revision.

Hardcore = for guys who like the DPC as it is now.

That way, people can choose. But even with the choice, you will always have the "complainers" that say get rid of it.

Originally posted by NtropiK
Happens in real football all the time tbh. There should be a vision check before the play where the QB can change to a hot read not necessarily in his progression similar to how they can hold in extra blockers. Then the HB/WR would also get a vision check to "know" what the QB was going to do. If the QB fails his read because of low vision/RNG then the blitz comes hot and a sack is likely. If the HB/WR fails his read than an incompletion or interception would be likely. If both pass their vision check then the pass would likely go for a long gain against fewer players in coverage. Would make vision an important attribute for HB/WRs and give the offense a chance to defend against overloads without holding anyone back.

Hell yeah. Don't take away, just keep adding. If perfect blocking is achieved I'm sure there's some NFL coordinators who'd like to see it. The real world game is messy at times and I can live with it in the GLB sim as long as it affects the other team also and new options to counter the latest fad are coming soon. It's a constant battle in the real game for defenses to find exploits to counter what an offense can do and for the offense to do the same. Don't kill the ability to find something that works for a team. Give the opponent more options to counter.
I understand a full OPC isn't really feasible at this stage but let's try just giving us more control over blocking to work out something that works. Whatever variables and options Bort is fiddlin' with to try to get blocking perfection need to be made available in player and team tactics. THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO! Playing around with who blocks who or what zone or what blitzer to key etc. IS FOOTBALL! Not being handed canned plays with predictable results so nothing interesting happens. I don't want to know exactly how the season will go as soon as the schedule comes out.
I've got to side with those who don't see exploit blitzes as a big problem as long as more tools are on the way to counter. Certainly not a big enough problem to warrant taking options away from the users.
I'm also with those who are not going to put $ into a game that's getting dumber. GLB has about 40k more flex to impress upon me that a rich, complex football experience is the goal and not a sim tailored for the masses clamoring to be successful. Everyone here needs to realize that half of us must lose. Every other day. If something failed yesterday then I need to adjust for tomorrow or lose again. Overcoming adversity. That's why we play the games.
I'd advise Bort not to sweat the imperfections and just keep giving us more options to work with. I'm MUCH more interested in seeing improved substitution and "force starter" control and more blocking logic control etc. than having options taken away because some don't want the challenge of adapting and overcoming "exploits".
As long as it's not a game over, end of story issue without possibility of a counter then just let us play and let those who can't overcome sink and those who can rise.
When I see a dot acting stupid I don't think "I wish Bort would fix that for me". I just hope we get the tools to make our own adjustments so I can fix it.
To those complaining that it takes too much time for them to be successful I say tough titties. When I get a trophy I want it to mean something more than I won the raffle that season. NFL teams have huge staffs of coordinators,analysts and coaches putting ungodly man-hours into 1 game each week. We're a long way from that here. Teams aspiring to the Pro or WL had better expect to put in significant time to be successful.