Warrior General Games

Originally posted by pedro617
False!

I can set up a D to run this play every down regardless what the offense does if I wanted.

im not talking about exploits.

not really an exploit so much as knowing how the defensive playbook works

Originally posted by Laggo
not really an exploit so much as knowing how the defensive playbook works

uh no... the #wr is supposed to lock in plays to offensive formations.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
uh no... the #wr is supposed to lock in plays to offensive formations.

This is true BUT it was apparent very early that Corndog wasn't fond of that. That's where the heuristic coverage method originated. The idea is that any defensive play should be able to cover any offensive play. The problem at this point is two-fold. First, there were some unintended consequences such as come plays being very OP. Second, tactics weren't updated so that means the only way to take advantage of a play like All Dogs against 4 or 5 WRs is to not have any plays in the playbook meant to cover 4 or 5 WRs. That feels like an exploit.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
This is true BUT it was apparent very early that Corndog wasn't fond of that. That's where the heuristic coverage method originated. The idea is that any defensive play should be able to cover any offensive play. The problem at this point is two-fold. First, there were some unintended consequences such as come plays being very OP. Second, tactics weren't updated so that means the only way to take advantage of a play like All Dogs against 4 or 5 WRs is to not have any plays in the playbook meant to cover 4 or 5 WRs. That feels like an exploit.

If CDog isn't onboard with locking in D to O forms then easy and quick solution is to remove play tags altogether.

The solution to the second part is to more effective plays so that there isn't only 1 or 2 super effective plays that everyone is using.


Removing play tags can be done, right now, today. There are already people getting around it 99% of the time. But it's limiting those that don't have as much experience tweaking their way around it, or if it bugs up like in our game vs Alpine. It seems like 95% of the coordinators are trying NOT to use it, and I'm sure whoever decided it should be put thought it was a good idea and would be used.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
If CDog isn't onboard with locking in D to O forms then easy and quick solution is to remove play tags altogether.

The solution to the second part is to more effective plays so that there isn't only 1 or 2 super effective plays that everyone is using.


Removing play tags can be done, right now, today. There are already people getting around it 99% of the time. But it's limiting those that don't have as much experience tweaking their way around it, or if it bugs up like in our game vs Alpine. It seems like 95% of the coordinators are trying NOT to use it, and I'm sure whoever decided it should be put thought it was a good idea and would be used.



bhall has alluded to some code changes that are ready to be uploaded. I haven't seen anything about that. I suspect they'll NOT upload anything until the offseason. I hope I'm wrong but based on how they did things in GLB1 I'm just not hopeful for a quick change.

Corndog works on a lot of things but Bort has to upload them live. Tough to say if anything sim related that isn't a bug will be uploaded before the offseason but it is on the radar.

Originally posted by bhall43
Corndog works on a lot of things but Bort has to upload them live. Tough to say if anything sim related that isn't a bug will be uploaded before the offseason but it is on the radar.

I did in fact post a thread in the bugs forums about D tactics, but I'm pretty sure it probably because of the play tags. So that may help it move along quicker hopefully.

Well the play tags aren't a bug related matter. But with the new coverage stuff the play tags aren't necessary.

Originally posted by bhall43
Well the play tags aren't a bug related matter. But with the new coverage stuff the play tags aren't necessary.

But because of the play tags, one play fired the whole game against a 4WR set instead of the 5 I had in the playbook. Doubt that is intended so I'm taking it either as a bug or a detracting feature taking away from the game.

That is working as it was intended to do prior to them going to this new assignment model.

You can score on that defense. It's hard but it's possible. Two tops teams in rookie played each other and it was fairly high scoring.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/28197

Less time whining to developers.

More time finding in game solutions to scheme problems. They are there. There are counters. You just need to work to find them.

Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Less time whining to developers.

More time finding in game solutions to scheme problems. They are there. There are counters. You just need to work to find them.

really with that nonsense? You sound like jampy

The #1 goal right now so early with GLB2 is getting the game as good as it can be through development and tweaking, and removing all exploits, which all dogs go obviously is.

Yes, there are ways to counter it, but one or two plays shouldn't be so obviously overpowered. The very best teams in GLB2 are using the same 2 or 3 rushing plays all game, and the same 2 or 3 defensive plays all game. Is that how it should be?

Originally posted by TDiddy8701
really with that nonsense? You sound like jampy

The #1 goal right now so early with GLB2 is getting the game as good as it can be through development and tweaking, and removing all exploits, which all dogs go obviously is.

Yes, there are ways to counter it, but one or two plays shouldn't be so obviously overpowered. The very best teams in GLB2 are using the same 2 or 3 rushing plays all game, and the same 2 or 3 defensive plays all game. Is that how it should be?

as a DC I do agree that the game would be more fun if it wasn't spam a dozen* plays all game.

Edit; at most