Warrior General Games

Perspective on what top pass offenses should look like, from http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing/sort/completionPct

NFL teams don't get to inflate their stats by facing teams as bad as GLB2 teams do, but New Orleans in 2017 completed 72.0% of their passes. They were the best and an outlier, but if anyone did that in GLB2 I'd bet someone would complain.

The worst completion percentage, by Cleveland, was 54.4%. 2 of those top 5 teams didn't reach that. Teams in the NFL middle were around 62%.

Best NFL YPA: 8.1. Worst: 5.7. GLB2 Team 4, a great team, was worse than the worst NFL passing team in both categories. The teams in the NFL middle were about 6.9 ypa.

Originally posted by Nyria
#5 is what all the best passing offenses should look like-- not in being able to do that every game but because they'll face some awful defenses and would put up 75% comp% and over 10 ypa against them. That even one very good team (#4) has under a 50% completion percentage, despite that they face some awful teams, shows that comp% especially is low. #2 would be somewhere near an average NFL team's passing offense, not a top one, and NFL teams don't get to face incompetent defenses in some of their games that inflate their stats.

Like I said #4 calls a lot homerun plays that are not working. SG5 Middle Cross not the hardest play to stop is their #1 pass play going for just 36.8%. DI Chalice not that difficult to stop either is their #3 getting only 37.3%. When GE calls more proven plays he throws for a very nice %. That team is #3 because that team causes lots of turnovers, runs the ball well, and stuffs the run.

So what do you want? Do you want it to roll back to where final scores were 63-48 again? I mean this is still an online game meant to be a game not the Big12. Who wants to build the best possible CB and give up a 70% target completion rate? This is not nor should be Madden.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I think the opposite. At least here it leads to more three and outs. It also leads to more possessions with the clock stopped so often. A 3-4 yard run on first down leads to a much higher % pass to get to the first down marker. Bronx is a good example punting just 35 times.

Passing leads to more punts? If it did in real life teams wouldn't do it, because it leads to more turnovers. I strongly doubt it does here, as long as one gets more ypa passing than ypc rushing...which we do, just not by real life margins. If it does, in fact, lead to more punts here then teams should be running 70+% of the time, because if you're more likely when passing to turn the ball over and also more likely to be forced to punt (which are the only two ways besides missing a field goal that you fail to score) then why do it?

In real life, that's definitely not the case, or teams wouldn't pass much. That's the balance that absolutely exists in real life: You move the ball better through the air but risk more turnovers.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
So what do you want? Do you want it to roll back to where final scores were 63-48 again? I mean this is still an online game meant to be a game not the Big12. Who wants to build the best possible CB and give up a 70% target completion rate? This is not nor should be Madden.

So are you saying offenses should be worse in GLB2 than in real life? If they were around real life then games wouldn't be 63-48, as real games are not.

If you're saying that the game is better with lower than real life offensive numbers, then you're saying the game is more fun or exciting that way? The NFL works very hard to figure out what will make the most marketable game, the game people will want to watch. If the defenses got close to what GLB defenses are doing they'd change the rules to prevent it, because the games wouldn't be as much fun to watch, fewer people would, and they'd make less money.

I keep saying they have to make small changes, not big, to avoid 63-48 games; but offenses should do better than they are in well matched games.

A 3rd and 6 is much easier to convert than a 3rd and 10. The entire passing playbook is available including the high % short TE routes. Those are off the table on 3rd and 10.

Originally posted by Nyria


I keep saying they have to make small changes, not big, to avoid 63-48 games; but offenses should do better than they are in well matched games.

No they really shouldn't. DCs are the hardest working coaches in this game. Top teams have top notch builds on defense and shouldn't be victims of hand outs. If I know what you are going to do I should be able to completely shut you down with the proper defense. Our CBs, safeties, and LBs spend a lot of money to play this game and shouldn't have to watch their players suck just because lazy OCs think they don't have to put the time in. It's about trying to find an opening or weak spot in a defense you are up against. Not hey I should be completing (x) amount of random passes against and and every defense no matter the circumstances.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
A 3rd and 6 is much easier to convert than a 3rd and 10. The entire passing playbook is available including the high % short TE routes. Those are off the table on 3rd and 10.

As far as 3rd and 6 vs. 3rd and 10, that's true. They talk about "3rd and manageable" on football broadcasts.

I haven't coordinated offense (only defense) since I returned to the game after a couple of years (after burning out from coaching too many teams) so I haven't checked and maybe should check back on offensive play analyses to see if it's still true...but back when I played before (passes still were a little weak in moving the ball but interceptions were low compared to real life so the risk/reward was similar to real life, both lower), there was not a pass play, no matter how short, that got more than about 65% completions, close to what the best non-short ones got. The main benefit of passing short was to avoid sacks.

I enjoy watching my CB's stop passes. I especially love one who's getting a lot of interceptions now (and I think the overall interception rate is close to reality also). I also hate to see my WR's get "unable to secure" so much, on the other hand, when generally CiT is their highest or second highest attribute among my new crop. And I'm still bothered with how many low scoring games I see-- even though I only coach defense right now. I have to repeat, it is not ridiculous like last season, and changes too strong are a big risk. But something gently pulling passing up a bit, carefully done, would be a benefit unless somehow someone wants to make a case that fewer drives and lower scoring is more fun than something closer to reality.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
No they really shouldn't. DCs are the hardest working coaches in this game. Top teams have top notch builds on defense and shouldn't be victims of hand outs. If I know what you are going to do I should be able to completely shut you down with the proper defense. Our CBs, safeties, and LBs spend a lot of money to play this game and shouldn't have to watch their players suck just because lazy OCs think they don't have to put the time in. It's about trying to find an opening or weak spot in a defense you are up against. Not hey I should be completing (x) amount of random passes against and and every defense no matter the circumstances.



Definitely not "no matter what the circumstances."

If your claim is that GLB2 DC's are better than OC's, that can't be proven or disproven. I don't know where you get it, though.

I'd very much guess the best OC's are as good as the best DC's. Both include great, good, mediocre, and awful practitioners.

But you're saying there should be less drives, more punts, less action in the game so that defenses succeed more than in real life, I take it, to make things more fun for defensive players and coordinators? Who are you suggesting should get a handout?

But if your case is that the game is more fun if there is less offense than real football, it's an opinion we have to agree to disagree on, because it's a matter of taste. To me, too little offense makes for a very boring game, but it's a matter of taste.

Originally posted by Nyria
Definitely not "no matter what the circumstances."

If your claim is that GLB2 DC's are better than OC's, that can't be proven or disproven. I don't know where you get it, though.

I'd very much guess the best OC's are as good as the best DC's. Both include great, good, mediocre, and awful practitioners.

But you're saying there should be less drives, more punts, less action in the game so that defenses succeed more than in real life, I take it, to make things more fun for defensive players and coordinators? Who are you suggesting should get a handout?

But if your case is that the game is more fun if there is less offense than real football, it's an opinion we have to agree to disagree on, because it's a matter of taste. To me, too little offense makes for a very boring game, but it's a matter of taste.

I said DCs work harder than OCs or anyone else on a coaching staff. It's a fact. How would I know? Well I just spent 80+% of my gameplan time on defense, as always. I bet Merik just did the same. Go play some Madden on easy you might prefer that. I don't want that lazy ass OP shit.

I suppose you want the G to pancake the DT every play. The WR to make miraculous triple teamed catches over 3 beautifully built high deletion DBs every play. A HB to just maul the 85 power tackling, brickwall, Monster Hitting LB.

Well how about the guys spending tons of money boosting their defensive players just to watch them not able to do anything because someone wants random offensive plays to pick up (x) amount of yards against against every defensive call because it sounds kind of good.

To the competitive coordinators a good game gets your heart thumping. The drama of finishing a drive against a great defense. Te agony of guessing wrong and leaving an unexpected opening or a door you thought would be left wide open was completely slammed shut. All the money spent and nights of little sleep should be for nothing because someone who doesn't really play wants (x).

You yes you are the DC of Pheonix but all I see is refurbished game plans of your's truly being used. DCing is pretty easy huh?

Originally posted by Nyria
So are you saying offenses should be worse in GLB2 than in real life? If they were around real life then games wouldn't be 63-48, as real games are not.

If you're saying that the game is better with lower than real life offensive numbers, then you're saying the game is more fun or exciting that way? The NFL works very hard to figure out what will make the most marketable game, the game people will want to watch. If the defenses got close to what GLB defenses are doing they'd change the rules to prevent it, because the games wouldn't be as much fun to watch, fewer people would, and they'd make less money.

I keep saying they have to make small changes, not big, to avoid 63-48 games; but offenses should do better than they are in well matched games.

Well, first of all, GLB isn't a spectator sport. People pay money to make players, and that includes defensive players.

And...games are already ending with scores in the 20's or 30's. I'm not sure what time warp you're in where defense is so overbearing that games are ending in the single digits. Bumping that up would be back to games looking more like basketball scores.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_

You yes you are the DC of Pheonix but all I see is refurbished game plans of your's truly being used. DCing is pretty easy huh?

The team I'm doing game planning for is the Legion. I didn't even know Phoenix was using any of my defenses. They offered me the spot and I took it. They had every spot filled, and no one im'd or mailed me and asked me to do the defense, so the only thing I did was add players who'd been left off the depth chart to it, which I asked as I recall, you specifically to do on offense as I lacked access.

If anything sounds like I dislike you, I don't. I also can see from the team you own you're a great coach and I don't question that.

I'm not even doing every Legion game, either. The owner and I know who's doing which game, which we feel is an advantage because opposing OC's aren't even facing the same defensive coach. That makes it hard to scout. I've been offered at least two spots to do more (one a head coach slot), and haven't taken them. Remember, I left due to burnout. I like doing some planning, but I'm not super-eager to do a lot right now.

I used to do both offense and defense (in one case ran the team as a GM, the other did some of that as assistant GM, game planned both sides for both). I was pretty good. I wasn't super or anything, but the teams I planned for ended up with winning records. One did so despite having no S*'s. I may then have found defense a little harder than offense because we couldn't choose what distance a play was. If it was labeled "short pass" it was considered a short pass defense, including most man blitzes, which the last time you use a blitz if if you expect a short pass because the blitzers won't have time to get to the QB.

But right now, that problem fixed, I can label a play what I want to label it, so while no coordination is super-easy if you do it right (which is why I burned out before from too much) but I find DC (doing a slight majority of one team's) easier than I think I'd find doing the same amount on offense, because offense is set up to fail compared to real offense, and the frustration would get to me.

When it comes to it though, you're saying defenses should do better than real defenses so that defensive coaches and those who make defensive players should be able to succeed more than they do in real life. To be fair to your point of view, I should admit that offenses have more real life success than defenses, so if the idea is every position should succeed equally your view might follow. And both sides of the ball cost overall about the same. I don't support the view, but I understand it and it's not unreasonable.

I get both the good and bad sides, as most people do (few make only players on one side of the ball). As I said, I enjoy seeing my defenders succeed, and get frustrated seeing offensive players underperform. Then I realize my defenders are being given gifts by an engine that favors them and my offensive players are being hindered by an engine that hurts them (doing more as an "agent" than any sort of coordinator, by choice right now). And then all I want to do is to be able to see games in which I can imagine they're doing what they are in real life and feel how I'd feel based on that. And also to see more exciting games, because offense is more exciting, as long as it doesn't reach the point of 63-56 games where scoring is meaningless. Nothing though among fairly close games is duller than a 3-0 game (but that was a much, much bigger problem last season than this one. Either I'm communicating my view poorly or you mean to make it into a straw man much more extreme view than it is; the meta is halfway decent this season; I just want better than a halfway decent meta; with the current meta it's still a very good game, and with a better meta it would be fantastic).

About defense vs offense in sports, that's how most USA sports fans are (and most on this site, like me, I'm sure are from the USA), which is why what most of the world calls football (and we call soccer) isn't popular here compared to our football, or basketball, or baseball, or hockey. Soccer would be a fine sport, except there's so little scoring that there isn't enough action for most Americans-- though to be fair fans in most countries have learned to love it.

And if there's a soccer sim anywhere like this, maybe people argue to make it have more offense than actual soccer because those who make strikers deserve to see them get some goals. I prefer a game that looks like the real thing. I think I would even if it were based on soccer.

Originally posted by Corndog
Well, first of all, GLB isn't a spectator sport. People pay money to make players, and that includes defensive players.

And...games are already ending with scores in the 20's or 30's. I'm not sure what time warp you're in where defense is so overbearing that games are ending in the single digits. Bumping that up would be back to games looking more like basketball scores.

To a large extent it is a spectator sport. The enjoyment whether owning, coordinating, or just player building, comes when you watch your players and/or tactics in the game. It's also, of course, about player building to have that enjoyment, and what makes GLB2 so much better than the original is that the player building actually works well and involves difficult choices and tradeoffs, and that from the start (where the original one must slow build) you can build your player to be good for his tier, and nothing is lost long term by doing that.

You, Bort, and everyone else involved did an amazing job with making the player building so interesting. Metas I guess have been all over the place, from extreme offense that I wasn't here for, but I definitely accept existed, to last season's extreme defense.

And I understand the point you're making, that people build defensive players as well as offensive players and the idea is they should be able to succeed also. And I think they should too, to the extent defensive players do in real football. Obviously there are a lot of defensive players in the NFL Hall of Fame, etc., who everyone realizes were amazing despite that NFL offenses are quite effective overall.

I think most people make both players on offense and defense. I probably have more players that play defense than offense. QB's and HB's don't have high demand (especially QB's, despite it saying high demand on the creation screen), and O-linemen aren't much fun to watch, so if I want fun players in demand on offense I have to make receivers (WR/TE). There are only so many of those I want to make. I have a wider variety of players on defense that are fun to watch and will be in demand.

I've looked through scores, and some games are high scoring. I think there are a lot more low scoring games than real life. I know that completion percentages are very, very low and yards per pass attempt low compared to real life, I think rushing yards per carry are somewhat low as well, in closely matched games.

Maybe that's what you want, and maybe you think defensive players would be no fun to create if there were more offense (did people stop making them during the super-high offense seasons though?) I think the game's more fun if it's a good spectator sport. I'm sad that those running it, who have done so well in so many ways (which is why I'll probably keep playing despite the weak offenses and the desire to keep them weak), want to keep the games less exciting. And no, 64-57 isn't my idea of excitement. And no, there aren't a zillion 3-0 games this season as last season had (if there were along with a desire to keep it I'd have no interest even with the great player building); but 31-27 is more fun than 16-10 also.

So you pretty much want coordinating to.be removed from the game and just use presets set specifically to get (x) every game.

Randomly buff all offense so he blowouts are going to be insane.

It's all complete nonsense.

Originally posted by Corndog
The difference being, if something isn't working in real life, teams stop doing it. If something isn't working in GLB, you keep doing it for the rest of the game. I'm perfectly fine with teams getting shutdown so hard if the defense keys in on their playcalling, the same way the offense will put up 60+ points if they do the same to defense.

Passing isn't being shutdown because the defense is keying on it, it's being shutdown because passing is broken. It would be like saying to teams the past few seasons, "Sure rushing sucks, but that's because of playcalling, not because they're staggering and falling over untouched". How about boosting Pass Defense(which has been asked for since forever) instead of nerfing Pass Offense.

And there are far more blowout games this season than I've seen in GLB2, scores look more like GLB1 now. I'm talking good matchups ending with 50-point blowouts. Go back 5 seasons ago and most games were decided by a TD and went down to the wire. The forum is dead when all people can say is "GG", since it's usually lopsided.