Warrior General Games

Toast also has some amazing breakfast. Their biscuits and gravy are meh...but Go Home Thomas and potato rosti are fantastic.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
I don't know. I just don't consider it a bug when something is designed to work against one thing and doesn't work against somethings its not designed for. The play that doesn't work that's labeled for 5 WR? Yeah, that's a bug. The one that's labeled as 3-4 WRs, that isn't.

Back on Classic I have tons of dime and quarter formation plays that would leave WR5 (or even WR4) uncovered if I used them against 4 or 5 WR sets. Because I knew they wouldn't work against those sets, I only used them against sets they were designed to cover. If this was the early days of GLB1 where there wasn't more information provided, I'd agree. Since the information is provided, I disagree.

I'm sorry, you're very stupid. You're hung up on the label when that has no relevance. The obvious-to-anyone-else-but-you problem is a WR is being double covered while another one is left uncovered. Do you see any plays that say to double a WR? That's because there aren't any plays where you can specifically choose to double a WR. Hence, there is a bug and the coverage is wrong, sorry. Be happy you're getting paid without any expectations, you'd be lucky for even McDonald's to employ you.

Originally posted by Corndog
Pine state has the best sausage gravy. So hard to find it on this side of the country.

yeah that place is amazing... rarely get to go up there though.

Originally posted by Homage
I'm disappointed in DD. He's led you astray.

I figured he'd find Sassy's on his own.

Originally posted by Corndog
But yeah, I would try to fix these, but Bort's the only one who can manually edit the plays in the database.

so he can fix it now right?

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
I'm sorry, you're very stupid. You're hung up on the label when that has no relevance. The obvious-to-anyone-else-but-you problem is a WR is being double covered while another one is left uncovered. Do you see any plays that say to double a WR? That's because there aren't any plays where you can specifically choose to double a WR. Hence, there is a bug and the coverage is wrong, sorry. Be happy you're getting paid without any expectations, you'd be lucky for even McDonald's to employ you.

There are broken plays, no doubt. Over Smoke (labeled for 4-5 WRs), for example, is broken.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/1458/1268669

Programming logic is not the same as common sense. If Bort labeled something as 3 WR then assume that WR4 and WR5 aren't covered and that any defensive dots who aren't in zone are covering (perhaps double covering) WR1, WR2, or WR3. I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about that?

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
There are broken plays, no doubt. Over Smoke (labeled for 4-5 WRs), for example, is broken.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/1458/1268669

Programming logic is not the same as common sense. If Bort labeled something as 3 WR then assume that WR4 and WR5 aren't covered and that any defensive dots who aren't in zone are covering (perhaps double covering) WR1, WR2, or WR3. I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about that?

Nothing hard to understand about what you said. However, explaining it in a different way or giving a different reason for it not working as it should doesn't make it not a bug or not broken.

If the play lists players in man coverage, they should be in single man coverage. The code should include a check to see if a receiver already has someone man covering them. So if I'm facing 2 WRs on the weak side and have 2 CBs over there, one assigned to man coverage on each my FS who is also given a man assignment should NEVER double those weak side receivers unless every single other receiver has a man assigned to them already.

Programming is programming, you program the arguments and supply specific outcomes. It is obvious that man coverage is coded incorrectly. I understand that if I am running 4-3 man coverage against a 5 wide set there will be mismatches. But that should not mean that because the 4-3 says it is for 2-3 WR sets that the man coverages should just be wrong and leave people open. The fact that plays even say short/medium/long or vs 1-2 or 2-3 or 5 WRs is actually funny. You can run any formation against any formation, the formation should not be limiting in any way, just the players and their positions/assignments.

So, in summation, if the defensive play shows 6 defensive players that are supposed to have man assignments and 6 receivers go out on routes, every single one of them better be in single man coverage or it's broken, regardless of off play vs def play formation. If not, then included in the defensive play it needs to show which player is providing double coverage so I know if I run this play it against a certain number of receivers on a certain side it will leave someone open.

Also, while I'm talking about coverage, the hook zones that the CBs play are just sad. Not only are they playing like 1 yard off the LOS, which is a flat zone, they are also usually sliding towards the sideline - taking themselves out of the play. The CBs hook zone, the yellow one, should be ~5 yards from the LOS just like the LBs. Even safeties move towards the line of scrimmage when assigned to a hook zone, why can't the CBs move away from the LOS to cover the correct area of their hook zone assignment?

And the largest problem of all, there no zone plays where the CBs are playing man!!!! Except in specialized defenses with specialized personnel, CBs generally are in man coverage 80% of the time. Yet if I want my LBs or safeties to play zone then there are no plays where my CBs can stay in man coverage. It's either all zone or all man, except for a few plays under man coverage where a safety or LB might have a zone assignment. The reality is most defenses most of the time in most situations have a combination of CBs in man, and safeties in zone. The LBs vary the most, from blitzing, spying, man or zone... but anyways, this should be obvious.

Just wanted to point out that most coverage assignments on at least half the total defensive plays need work. The ones that do are pretty much unusable if you want to be successful or not rely on getting lucky with a sack or fumble before the offense exploits the bug. If they need help deciding where players should be or do for any plays on defensive I could definitely help them out.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Nothing hard to understand about what you said. However, explaining it in a different way or giving a different reason for it not working as it should doesn't make it not a bug or not broken.

If the play lists players in man coverage, they should be in single man coverage. The code should include a check to see if a receiver already has someone man covering them. So if I'm facing 2 WRs on the weak side and have 2 CBs over there, one assigned to man coverage on each my FS who is also given a man assignment should NEVER double those weak side receivers unless every single other receiver has a man assigned to them already.

Programming is programming, you program the arguments and supply specific outcomes. It is obvious that man coverage is coded incorrectly. I understand that if I am running 4-3 man coverage against a 5 wide set there will be mismatches. But that should not mean that because the 4-3 says it is for 2-3 WR sets that the man coverages should just be wrong and leave people open. The fact that plays even say short/medium/long or vs 1-2 or 2-3 or 5 WRs is actually funny. You can run any formation against any formation, the formation should not be limiting in any way, just the players and their positions/assignments.

So, in summation, if the defensive play shows 6 defensive players that are supposed to have man assignments and 6 receivers go out on routes, every single one of them better be in single man coverage or it's broken, regardless of off play vs def play formation. If not, then included in the defensive play it needs to show which player is providing double coverage so I know if I run this play it against a certain number of receivers on a certain side it will leave someone open.

Also, while I'm talking about coverage, the hook zones that the CBs play are just sad. Not only are they playing like 1 yard off the LOS, which is a flat zone, they are also usually sliding towards the sideline - taking themselves out of the play. The CBs hook zone, the yellow one, should be ~5 yards from the LOS just like the LBs. Even safeties move towards the line of scrimmage when assigned to a hook zone, why can't the CBs move away from the LOS to cover the correct area of their hook zone assignment?

And the largest problem of all, there no zone plays where the CBs are playing man!!!! Except in specialized defenses with specialized personnel, CBs generally are in man coverage 80% of the time. Yet if I want my LBs or safeties to play zone then there are no plays where my CBs can stay in man coverage. It's either all zone or all man, except for a few plays under man coverage where a safety or LB might have a zone assignment. The reality is most defenses most of the time in most situations have a combination of CBs in man, and safeties in zone. The LBs vary the most, from blitzing, spying, man or zone... but anyways, this should be obvious.

Just wanted to point out that most coverage assignments on at least half the total defensive plays need work. The ones that do are pretty much unusable if you want to be successful or not rely on getting lucky with a sack or fumble before the offense exploits the bug. If they need help deciding where players should be or do for any plays on defensive I could definitely help them out.

Have you played GLB1? If so, did you use the DPC? That is the interface to how coverage is handled.

As a DC in GLB1, I had plays designed to cover 2 WRs. If I used those plays against a 3, 4, or 5 WR set there would be uncovered receivers. The game has never had "checks" to ensure there aren't uncovered receivers. Its based 100% on how the play is set up in the database. Changing to a "check" type system sounds like a great idea but coverage is currently working as its coded.

WORKING AS INTENDED

Lol yeah someone is already handicapped putting a 4-3 up against a 5 wr set it's kinda redundant to program the coverage to intentionally suck at that point. There's no real feasible defense as to why this shouldn't be fixed. Which is why it won't be fixed.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/10275/1800426

DB Strike has MLB and FS both covering the HB and leaving the FB uncovered in Pro Set TE Slants. DB Strike is listed as a 1-4 WR defense.

So in a many system there is no man check coverage... therefore you shouldnt even have man defenses in the game as 95% of preparing a man defense in your system is having man checks anyone who has ever played linebacker or DB in real life knows this, what do you think people do at practice all day pat each others butt?

This is sad that you are content with the "code" is working as intended instead of looking for a way to resolve it, you are making the players that pay for the game to exist and develop feel like you don't even care.

Perhaps instead of attempting to confrontate with your audience you mention how its something you have brought or are bringing to bort to help enhance his game? Perhaps you only care about offense much like in version 1 which handcuffs those of us that would rather smack someone in the mouth.

My two cents if you want to it a football game, then make it a football game. I've been playing this game for well for almost 4 years and have dealt with the discrepancies on defense but when you had an opportunity to launch a new version and you knew that defenses couldnt handle simple checks then it should probably been a simple priority, soon this version will be as exploitable as the old at that point I'm done if i wanted to watch offenses walk up and down the field against mentally handy capped defense that cant even figure out who to man up on I'd watch the pro bowl.

Originally posted by vipermaw82
So in a many system there is no man check coverage... therefore you shouldnt even have man defenses in the game as 95% of preparing a man defense in your system is having man checks anyone who has ever played linebacker or DB in real life knows this, what do you think people do at practice all day pat each others butt?

This is sad that you are content with the "code" is working as intended instead of looking for a way to resolve it, you are making the players that pay for the game to exist and develop feel like you don't even care.

Perhaps instead of attempting to confrontate with your audience you mention how its something you have brought or are bringing to bort to help enhance his game? Perhaps you only care about offense much like in version 1 which handcuffs those of us that would rather smack someone in the mouth.

My two cents if you want to it a football game, then make it a football game. I've been playing this game for well for almost 4 years and have dealt with the discrepancies on defense but when you had an opportunity to launch a new version and you knew that defenses couldnt handle simple checks then it should probably been a simple priority, soon this version will be as exploitable as the old at that point I'm done if i wanted to watch offenses walk up and down the field against mentally handy capped defense that cant even figure out who to man up on I'd watch the pro bowl.

How big is this boat? I'm sure more than you and I are jumping in.

Originally posted by vipermaw82
Perhaps instead of attempting to confrontate with your audience you mention how its something you have brought or are bringing to bort to help enhance his game?

wtf are you talking about?

Originally posted by Corndog
But yeah, I would try to fix these, but Bort's the only one who can manually edit the plays in the database.

well yeah we know bort can fix it but nobody's said anything about him actually doing it or anyone even asking him to