Warrior General Games

Originally posted by coreyls18
This change seems like the programmers are trying to find an easy way out of this because they are too lazy to find the right solution.

them and EA sports....it doesn't matter how big the company is...nobody seems to have enough man power to program these sorts of things.

lets blame GLB for being lazy even though no other company can find enough programmers to fix ALL of the milllions of potential things when you allow unlimited movement!

Originally posted by bigtisme
them and EA sports....it doesn't matter how big the company is...nobody seems to have enough man power to program these sorts of things.

lets blame GLB for being lazy even though no other company can find enough programmers to fix ALL of the milllions of potential things when you allow unlimited movement!

It is not rocket science, and using Madden as an example is completely irrelevant (due to it's human moving part, and the wall architecture of the games).

In a world without stunts and crosses the blocking logic should not be too complected. There is something fundamentally wrong in the way GLB sim do it resulting of the sim finding new ways to screw up each time a change is implemented.

I would not call the developers lazy, but there should be a way to have decent blocking logic (at least near the LOS) without ridiculously complicated code.
Once the blocking logic is sensible, one only need to find a decent balance between O and D such that every time the D overload a side (in pass rush or run defense) the O had a counter measure.
A harder goal is to balance the secondary. This is the root of the problem that generated the overload blitz frenzy. Once the passing game become strong DC found out that they have a better change using over aggressive defenses then playing a bend and don't break tactics. Offense are responding with more passing and are winning the battle at the WL

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1420397&pbp_id=12055680

Left side blocking ignorant, HB kept back......

LT and LG part the red sea! http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1420397&pbp_id=12057995

Exploit blitz, regardless of the FB held back, there is no counter for avoiding this every time that offensive play is called.

Originally posted by The Avenger
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1420397&pbp_id=12055680

Left side blocking ignorant, HB kept back......

Originally posted by The Avenger
LT and LG part the red sea! http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1420397&pbp_id=12057995

Exploit blitz, regardless of the FB held back, there is no counter for avoiding this every time that offensive play is called.

Private games!

GOOO blocking = Gap(towards center), On, Over, Outside

After listening to Catch last night on Addicts radio, I'm much more comfortable with the change. The problem is obvious - with unlimited alignment and movement across the defensive line of scrimmage, the blockers are switching up, blocking ghosts, or laying good hits. Even with these logic problems, offenses can still control the ball and score...

The change is threefold - first, eliminate the biggest variable; second, create standard alignments (expand); third, find root cause and correct.

Yes, the game needs to allow defensive pressure in order to keep scoring reasonable, and GLB IS addressing.

Originally posted by secondeye
Right, because how else would you run for 500 yards a game using Strong Sweep or pitch, right?

As if vacating the middle of the field isn't already a weakness you could counter-exploit.

That's the whole thing I don't get.. It's like sending safeties to blitz on the outside to stop a sweep is considered an exploit that is impossible to stop. But funny..when people do it to me.. I just pound the ball inside on their 3 DL 2 LB front for 7 yards a carry..

Oh but that's right.. I actually change my schemes game to game.. How silly of me to expect anyone else to do the same.


Quoted for truth.

As a DC its extremely frustrating trying to stop sweep teams while keeping some semblance of an inside defense against FB dives.

I scout every game and set a defense for every opposing offensive alignment with coverage changes and blitz assignments. Losing the DPC would hamstring me.

I assume this change will also be accompanied by a nerf to the QB and HB sweeps and the fact that wide receivers are blocking the pants off our corners?

Keep the DPC, have fixed positions for where you can place blitzers, then blocking can be assigned by the numbers.

Let's say you have set positions for blitzing

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 on the LOS
10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-24 are 3 - 4 yards off the LOS

5 is Over C with 4 spots moving out on either side. 17 is off the LOS head up with C, with 7 spots on either side (allowing to move further out away from C than you can on LOS.

Then you make pass blocking assignments based on which numbers blitzers are coming from. So if blitz is coming from 1,3,6,8,9, 13, and 20 then you have one set of blocking assignments. If blitz is coming from 1-5-7-12 then you have a different set of blocking assignments.

It may mean that you need to take out the option of cover man or blitz though. Probably will need to be limited to coverage progressions with zone being the only option after multiple man coverage choices are made.

Originally posted by AlBarsch
After listening to Catch last night on Addicts radio, I'm much more comfortable with the change. The problem is obvious - with unlimited alignment and movement across the defensive line of scrimmage, the blockers are switching up, blocking ghosts, or laying good hits. Even with these logic problems, offenses can still control the ball and score...

The change is threefold - first, eliminate the biggest variable; second, create standard alignments (expand); third, find root cause and correct.

Yes, the game needs to allow defensive pressure in order to keep scoring reasonable, and GLB IS addressing.

didn't listen to the radio...but I understood this was the reason to get rid of DPC...or now to limit the movement for the DPC. I guess people who didn't understand that probably needed to listen to the radio show since I'm sure some still don't understand this.

Originally posted by
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 on the LOS
10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-24 are 3 - 4 yards off the LOS


For a total of 24 spots to check... when there are only 11 players on the field.

I have a better idea... how about you identify the number of blitzers and assign blockers to each one. Then you have a max of 11 calculations.

The computer knows how many blitzers are coming and where they are coming from. It knows where the blockers are and how fast they are. It can simulate just the blocking if it needed to, and assure that all the blitzers could be blocked and where the contact for testing would be.

Once the pathing is done, you make the checks to see of anyone failed to match their assignments.

The idea of having 24 zones and then having to match up a blitz package to the zones is... stupid, IMO.

Originally posted by AlBarsch

Yes, the game needs to allow defensive pressure in order to keep scoring reasonable, and GLB IS addressing.

The thing that is so wrong about all this is lack of defensive pressure is not the problem causing offenses to be so overpowered, which is the reason doing this is retarted. These overload blitzes (which for the record are not exploits) despite working very well do nothing to curtail the hyper offense that occurs in the sim. A team can get sacked 12 times and still put up a 70.

There are a bunch of reasons offense are so dominant and it is not lack of pressure.

Here are some thing to look at If you want to "keep scoring resonable"...

look at the overpowered fakes (from QBs, runners and recievers),

the insane amount of broken tackles,

the ability of recievers to eaisily catch balls no matter how well they are covered (up to quadruple coverage),

the piss poor pathing,

QBs being able to throw perfect passes up to ridiculous lengths even with a lineman or 2 or 3 in their face or running to their weakside with little or no penalty to pass quality,

the ability of HBs to run through piles of players as if they are not even there (while CBs/safties/LBs get picked all the time),

the inablity of a defensive player to base his tactics on situations (Run focus on 3rd and 17/ aggresive coverage when up 21) instead of having to be stuck on the same thing all game no matter what.,

CBs/safties either having to always go for the pick or never go for the pick or play so soft they might as well not be out there

WRs who NEVER fumble,

WRs with no strength/blocking sealing off the edges like they are OTs (and pretty much all 1 on 1 blocking being overpowered for O)

The fact that almost every change in this game with the exception of the DPC has benefited offense, Oh wait, wont be able to say that much longer

The fact that all these pro offense changes have come from misinformation and or refusual by some people to sacrifice what they want to do on offense instead of leaving in more blockers, using the run and short passes to beat the blitz, sacrificing some speed in builds to make a build more adept at its role and the general feeling from a lot of peolpe in GLB that their teams and players should be perfect all the time ("MY QB only completed 54% of his passes - fix the sim!!"), etc, etc, etc.

As far as keeping O and D balanced is concerned, if GLB is only trying to find a way to replace some of the pressure that will be lost with the removal of non exploit overload blitzes, then they arent addresing shit.

I have no problem with this, as long as the coverage progressions remain, we can choose who blitzes and from where (even if that's somewhat limited.

How about giving the D a bone in return, and allowing in the coverage progressions for the defender to choose a specific zone anywhere on the field instead of just some zone where they happen to be standing.

My understanding is that this is mainly about limiting alignment of the front seven in the box. As long as I have lots of options for shifts, and can still place my CBs and safeties and "cover without move" is still an option, I'm ok with this.

I would like to point out a few other things though:

1. Stacked blitzes aren't exploits. They are football. GLB just doesn't play the nuances of football very well.

2. This is a very unfortunate by-product of failure to properly code blocking. I get the sense that this change is one that GLB Inc came to with difficulty and they take little pride in this. Its a brave decision to admit failure like this, and I mean that sincerely.

3. As someone else said, this is going to be problematic if some of the other issues in the offence/defence interaction aren't addressed as well, notably WR blocking, CB positioning and decision-making on passes, the problem with deep zones not going as deep as receivers run routes, etc, etc etc.

ODG pretty much laid out the various issues in the post above me - this stuff has to be fixed, or the fun in playing or running a defence is going to be pretty much nil.

Originally posted by neoliminal

For a total of 24 spots to check... when there are only 11 players on the field.

I have a better idea... how about you identify the number of blitzers and assign blockers to each one. Then you have a max of 11 calculations.

The computer knows how many blitzers are coming and where they are coming from. It knows where the blockers are and how fast they are. It can simulate just the blocking if it needed to, and assure that all the blitzers could be blocked and where the contact for testing would be.

Once the pathing is done, you make the checks to see of anyone failed to match their assignments.

The idea of having 24 zones and then having to match up a blitz package to the zones is... stupid, IMO.

You do understand it is mathematical calculations correct?

The spots aren't zones. They are possible places to line someone up for blitzing. So a FS could be lined up at 17-24. A DT could be lined up at 5, 6, or 7. A MLB could be lined up at 2-8 or 13-21.

If you just make it based on the players blitzing, you can screw the OL up by moving the players around to different spots and force OL to criss cross each other.

However, if you have a blocking code for every possible numerical combination, it doesn't matter which player is in which spot. The OL, TE, backs will block based on the numerical combination from where the blitz is coming from.

You then add in vision checks for offense to identify the blitz. You can set it up so QB may audible if he effectively reads the blitz to make blocking more effective. However, if QB/OL fail vision checks, they may miss a LB, S, or CB who is blitzing. Disguise blitz would make the vision check harder for OL/QB to pass.

So, you may be sending 4 DL on a rush from the #1, #5, #7, #8 spots. And sending 2 LBs from the #9 and #18 spots. The QB may then read the blitz and audible the TE to pass block left. If the OL picks everyone up, they block based on a blitz/pass rush coming from #1,5,7,8,9,18. However, if one of them fails the vision check, (let's say one misses the LB at #18 spot), then that player will block as if there is only a blitz coming from #1,5,7,8,9.

It requires a lot of code work on Bort's part, but it will be a lot easier to code than trying to pick blocking assignments when players can be moved around and blitz from a virtually infinite number of positions and with a huge combination of personnel.

The positions of the blitzers before the snap are obviously numeric, no? There's an X and a Y location for each blitzer.

Pseudo Code:

1. Count Blitzers
2. Count Blocker.
3. If Blitzers > Blockers and vision check was passed... audible TE/HB/FB in to block (as assigned in play)
4.a QB attempt Vision check to assign blockers.
b.b QB and Center assign Blocking (This is what you see before a play when the center and QB are pointing at defenders.)
5. Formulate paths for blitzing players.
6. Formulate blocking paths for blocking players.
7. Failed Vision checks have them blocking someone else.


You don't need 24 slots for this. In fact, that just seems to make it harder to work out....