Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DeeVee8
The don't get high on your own supply rule?

LOL more like don't get in the way of the developers.

Separation is key, it lets them do what they do best and free's them from interacting with the customer. If you have a product owner , they are the one trolling the suggestion forum , posting announcements , communicating with the user ,checking the bug report, and most importantly negotiating and setting priorities for the product (coding) backlog.

Your developer is then TOTALLY free to do nothing but write and test code , he meets once/twice a day with the developer and helps set priorities. The developer remains responsible for "how-to" get things done and are freed from craziness of interaction.

Thinking about it the game is even really "built" for a perfectly for a double sprint cycle(software coding lifecycle), a 51 days including off-season, A three week cycle gives you:

A two day sprint kickoff at the start of the season
A 21 Day sprint (Focusing on the bug report , working off "quicker" < 40 hour problems from the product owner, you get as many done as you can get done
A one day sprint review(Lessons learned, let the PO publish changes)
A two day sprint kickoff plan
A 21 day sprint (Focusing on a "major" improvement one that takes say 120 hours to fix)
A one day sprint review
3 Days of Admin stuff in the off-season , moving teams etc...

The whole time, the PO runs interference. If players are screaming about say the 2 minute drill or end of game.... and the PO comes around on the suggestion thread and just says yes this is a concern, but right now we are fixing the GL outside run spam and testing ideas I moved that up in priority.... then at least people have an answer. If a serious bug is driving the players crazy, the PO can come in and raise its priority.

- Two distinct functions , two distinct roles , should be two distinct people. Let the developer figure out "how-to" develop and make the game better, while the PO figures out what should be next and frees the developer to do what they do best. I like what RandomMike said above (with more brevity than I have naturally): This game is way better than GLB1, but seems like a lot is being left on the table

Originally posted by willcoll
Not sure if this has already been said but here are the two reasons this game struggles to gain more people imo.

1) The only good time to start playing is when the season is over and a new one is beginning. Experienced players help with that but the new players have to play on CPU teams. It takes the fun out of it and makes it tough to get started. My fix is make their be 2 leagues kind of. For example the first league starts on day one and ends on day 48. The second one starts on day 24 ends on day 72. Essentially making 2 off seasons. Also extend the off season by 2 days. Not a perfect solution but it helps.

2) Lack of advertising. I found out about this game on Google. I always used to try and search for football games like this but it took me forever for this game to come up. People are not aware of this game and maybe you should start advertising on websites like OperationSports or other websites frequently used by players who may love this game.

First one is also a good idea but let's be serious it's never going to happen.

I mean when it takes a company 5+ months to implement stats in a game that is stat driven, you know there's a problem. Like....

Originally posted by Time Trial
This was moved to FAQs?

This was moved to Suggestions?

Originally posted by Time Trial
This was moved to Suggestions?

Suggestions -> leave the game

The pass completion % into double coverages is just lol.

Also the dumb pass drops for receivers standing perfectly still.

Being able to use screen passes would go miles toward keeping defenses honest, but there seems to be an intentional code
that limits completions. That's the only explanation I can see for the ridiculous number of times the receiver catches
the ball, while standing still, and just fall over and lays there. Receivers can make diving catches into double coverage
all day, just don't ask them to catch a toss with nobody around them. At what point did they watch how screens work and say -
'yep, we nailed it'.

Originally posted by glwarriors
The pass completion % into double coverages is just lol.

Also the dumb pass drops for receivers standing perfectly still.

Being able to use screen passes would go miles toward keeping defenses honest, but there seems to be an intentional code
that limits completions. That's the only explanation I can see for the ridiculous number of times the receiver catches
the ball, while standing still, and just fall over and lays there. Receivers can make diving catches into double coverage
all day, just don't ask them to catch a toss with nobody around them. At what point did they watch how screens work and say -
'yep, we nailed it'.



double coverage receptions aren't nearly as common as you believe. They're just very memorable when they do happen, and it's usually because the two covering builds involved are either terrible, or one/both are totally exhausted/morale-spiraled.

When a couple of well built defenders with good energy/morale are covering a guy, it's rare that the QB even targets the WR, much less actually completes the pass. Even then, they DO happen somewhat rarely, as they should.

Originally posted by Galithor


double coverage receptions aren't nearly as common as you believe. They're just very memorable when they do happen, and it's usually because the two covering builds involved are either terrible, or one/both are totally exhausted/morale-spiraled.

When a couple of well built defenders with good energy/morale are covering a guy, it's rare that the QB even targets the WR, much less actually completes the pass. Even then, they DO happen somewhat rarely, as they should.

You know what is a lot rarer than double coverage receptions? Int's for passes thrown into double coverage. Now you can tell me how the defenders have low morale / energy / int skills, and you would have a point there too. But there should still be a better balance than we have now.

Part of what I think folks want from double coverage is some kind of stacking of the skills. Pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Defender 1 gets a try at defending the pass, then defender 2 gets a try. If they both suck (whatever reason, build, energy, poor positioning, etc), that's two really bad tries. The only advantage you're getting is two shots at defense, based on the individual merits of the players involved. It does reduce the success rate of the receiver, but not to zero like some folks are hoping.

And the lack of INTs in general is a build/scheme issue. There are players out there that can get double digit INTs in a 30 game season.

Originally posted by Galithor


double coverage receptions aren't nearly as common as you believe. They're just very memorable when they do happen, and it's usually because the two covering builds involved are either terrible, or one/both are totally exhausted/morale-spiraled.

As someone who's been a defensive coordinator every season he's played, I can tell you they are extremely common.

And running the offense on the Cat Herders this season, our WR's are more likely to catch a ball in single coverage than when wide open, and catch passes in double coverage at about the same pace as wide open. Triple coverage hasn't happened enough to be statistically significant, but the fact that it happens more than once in a blue moon is a problem, and since it does happen more than once in a blue moon...

You got stats on that Xav? Cause Cleveland elects to dump it off to a shorter route instead of challenging double coverage over 70% of the time. I haven't tabbed it up with recent games, but Santa Clara forced a bunch of underneath stuff against us just today.

When he does challenge double coverages, it's usually for some good reason like:

"trololol Philip Fry"
"WR ran a good route and is wide open against both the idiots covering him"
"Opportunity to throw jump pass to good jumping possession target to eliminate one of the defenders from the coverage rolls"
"One or both of those defenders suck at covering/are exhausted, they'll be no real factor on this throw"

Or the rarer, and somewhat influenced by the caliber of the defense being faced:

"made bad choices"

That last one has a predictably low rate of success.

While you are at it you might fix the screwed up dynamic where teams that lose a fumble on their opening drive lose like 95% of the time.

Originally posted by glwarriors
While you are at it you might fix the screwed up dynamic where teams that lose a fumble on their opening drive lose like 95% of the time.

*Runs off to build a KO coverage unit full of FF builds and hope for the best*

Originally posted by glwarriors
While you are at it you might fix the screwed up dynamic where teams that lose a fumble on their opening drive lose like 95% of the time.

that's a fix yo' builds issue.

The biggest problem with the game in terms of newbies is the fact that all the experienced agents team up together in "clans" and then dominate, or attempt the dominate the weaker teams. This is unfair on many levels for the younger players, which is why alot get frustrated and quit.

My suggestion therefore would be to have a sortof "experience" level, maybe from 1-100 on every agents profile. So if you have a team with say more then 8 agents over a certain experience threshold, then that would be over the cap, and would be not allowed. That way you would NEED rookie players to win. Right now, nobody needs rookie players or agents to win, so they are sent to the wolves to get raped against stupid clans, or relegated to CPU teams. Neither of which is good for anyone, except the clans.