Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Stickman
Originally posted by Beef Supreme

Originally posted by Bountytaker


222-0....ridiculous.

All these tweaks, changes, plans...and this beta still allows ridiculous results like that.

If they did the same thing this game as they did against us (193-0), they never ran an offense. They just punted on first down everytime.

Actually, they threw the ball every down they had it, except on 4th downs when they punted. Granted, they completed more pass to Windsor (10) than they did to their own team (7), but they did still throw the ball 81 times.

They did, however, run a goal-line defense for most (if not all) of the game. Which is not a particularly good strategy. Although you'd think that when you play goal-line D you'd be able to stop the run, but I guess that's the problem with level 1 cpu guys....

You'd think that Bort could make the CPU guys a little bit better so this isn't such a problem....

Thanks,
StickMan

If left to CPU control, the CPU would sign players that are far more competitive. When humans deliberately scrape the bottom of the crap barrel... well, its probably not too easy to program the solution.

Originally posted by ddingo
Originally posted by Stickman

Originally posted by Beef Supreme


Originally posted by Bountytaker



222-0....ridiculous.

All these tweaks, changes, plans...and this beta still allows ridiculous results like that.

If they did the same thing this game as they did against us (193-0), they never ran an offense. They just punted on first down everytime.

Actually, they threw the ball every down they had it, except on 4th downs when they punted. Granted, they completed more pass to Windsor (10) than they did to their own team (7), but they did still throw the ball 81 times.

They did, however, run a goal-line defense for most (if not all) of the game. Which is not a particularly good strategy. Although you'd think that when you play goal-line D you'd be able to stop the run, but I guess that's the problem with level 1 cpu guys....

You'd think that Bort could make the CPU guys a little bit better so this isn't such a problem....

Thanks,
StickMan

If left to CPU control, the CPU would sign players that are far more competitive. When humans deliberately scrape the bottom of the crap barrel... well, its probably not too easy to program the solution.

I just don't get why they don't program a "dead man's switch", so to speak. When a team is down 77-0 in the second half, turn on a special program that doesn't allow the score to go any higher.

And if the complaint is "stats"...well, who cares. They don't affect your exp., and if you didn't build up enough stats in a 77-0 first half shellacking, then you're either greedy, or an idiot.

And, that way, there wouldn't be any of these wildly ridiculous, unrealistic scores floating around the league each season.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Originally posted by ddingo

Originally posted by Stickman


Originally posted by Beef Supreme



Originally posted by Bountytaker




222-0....ridiculous.

All these tweaks, changes, plans...and this beta still allows ridiculous results like that.

If they did the same thing this game as they did against us (193-0), they never ran an offense. They just punted on first down everytime.

Actually, they threw the ball every down they had it, except on 4th downs when they punted. Granted, they completed more pass to Windsor (10) than they did to their own team (7), but they did still throw the ball 81 times.

They did, however, run a goal-line defense for most (if not all) of the game. Which is not a particularly good strategy. Although you'd think that when you play goal-line D you'd be able to stop the run, but I guess that's the problem with level 1 cpu guys....

You'd think that Bort could make the CPU guys a little bit better so this isn't such a problem....

Thanks,
StickMan

If left to CPU control, the CPU would sign players that are far more competitive. When humans deliberately scrape the bottom of the crap barrel... well, its probably not too easy to program the solution.

I just don't get why they don't program a "dead man's switch", so to speak. When a team is down 77-0 in the second half, turn on a special program that doesn't allow the score to go any higher.

And if the complaint is "stats"...well, who cares. They don't affect your exp., and if you didn't build up enough stats in a 77-0 first half shellacking, then you're either greedy, or an idiot.

And, that way, there wouldn't be any of these wildly ridiculous, unrealistic scores floating around the league each season.



what if they gameplanned to do that, and then killed them with their real starters while they were stuck at 77?

Originally posted by doomstar
Originally posted by Bountytaker

Originally posted by ddingo


Originally posted by Stickman



Originally posted by Beef Supreme




Originally posted by Bountytaker





222-0....ridiculous.

All these tweaks, changes, plans...and this beta still allows ridiculous results like that.

If they did the same thing this game as they did against us (193-0), they never ran an offense. They just punted on first down everytime.

Actually, they threw the ball every down they had it, except on 4th downs when they punted. Granted, they completed more pass to Windsor (10) than they did to their own team (7), but they did still throw the ball 81 times.

They did, however, run a goal-line defense for most (if not all) of the game. Which is not a particularly good strategy. Although you'd think that when you play goal-line D you'd be able to stop the run, but I guess that's the problem with level 1 cpu guys....

You'd think that Bort could make the CPU guys a little bit better so this isn't such a problem....

Thanks,
StickMan

If left to CPU control, the CPU would sign players that are far more competitive. When humans deliberately scrape the bottom of the crap barrel... well, its probably not too easy to program the solution.

I just don't get why they don't program a "dead man's switch", so to speak. When a team is down 77-0 in the second half, turn on a special program that doesn't allow the score to go any higher.

And if the complaint is "stats"...well, who cares. They don't affect your exp., and if you didn't build up enough stats in a 77-0 first half shellacking, then you're either greedy, or an idiot.

And, that way, there wouldn't be any of these wildly ridiculous, unrealistic scores floating around the league each season.



what if they gameplanned to do that, and then killed them with their real starters while they were stuck at 77?

That's pretty silly dude. If your team was good enough to overcome a 77 point deficit in 1 half against the team, they why not just destroy them in the first place, rather then let them get those 77 points to begin with?

Exactly, beaker.....I mean, really, who spots someone 77 first half points as part of a plan to win it in the final seconds? This is why simple fixes don't seem to get done. Someone offeres a wildly unlikely scenario to discredit the change, and we end up stuck with the same, broken system, season after season.


But, there's even two options to prevent your goofy scenario:

1) The "switch" would turn on when the deficit is at a certain number, say 77. So, if the crappy team, down 77-0, came out in the second half, and scored right away, it would turn off, until the deficit was 77 again. Yes, that means the score could look out of hand again, like 87-9, etc.., but it would still keep the liklihood of 125+ down to almost nil.

2) The "switch" acts as a mercy rule. In effect, if you're down 77-0, you've lost. The sim will not allow you to come back. It'll play out the rest of the game, allowing teams to move the ball, but it won't let the team with 77 score anymore, and it won't let the team that's behind, win. So, no goofy "let them get ahead by 11 touchdowns, then we'll take them" problems.


Can't believe I had to even write those two. Sheesh.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Exactly, beaker.....I mean, really, who spots someone 77 first half points as part of a plan to win it in the final seconds? This is why simple fixes don't seem to get done. Someone offeres a wildly unlikely scenario to discredit the change, and we end up stuck with the same, broken system, season after season.


But, there's even two options to prevent your goofy scenario:

1) The "switch" would turn on when the deficit is at a certain number, say 77. So, if the crappy team, down 77-0, came out in the second half, and scored right away, it would turn off, until the deficit was 77 again. Yes, that means the score could look out of hand again, like 87-9, etc.., but it would still keep the liklihood of 125+ down to almost nil.

2) The "switch" acts as a mercy rule. In effect, if you're down 77-0, you've lost. The sim will not allow you to come back. It'll play out the rest of the game, allowing teams to move the ball, but it won't let the team with 77 score anymore, and it won't let the team that's behind, win. So, no goofy "let them get ahead by 11 touchdowns, then we'll take them" problems.


Can't believe I had to even write those two. Sheesh.

.... sarcasm is really hard to put over the internets o.o

OH MY GOD, French Lick deliberately used the scrimmages to see how bad we could be.

It was for testing purposes, as we're about to bring in pretty bad players and our defense was actually the main concern with a team like this.

So... is there really someone out there saying that this game is broken because a team that was trying to give you as many points as possible in those scrimmages is giving up too many points?!?!?!

I'll tell you this much:
I couldn't believe that our team kept both opponents under 255 points.

And what are you suggesting with this "switch?"
You say stats are meaningless but you still say the games will be played out - and they better or people would sure complain about loss of XP.

So all you really suggested was that stats shouldn't be kept track of.
Great idea, when the backups come in you don't think they're going to complain about why the starters should have stats that count and the backups shouldn't though?

Your "solution" would just piss more people off than anything else, dude.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
...and we end up stuck with the same, broken system, season after season.

And I love that the "broken system" is one where the worst players we could try to assemble weren't able to play a lick.

That should be fixed, eh?
*rolls eyes*

Originally posted by doomstar
Originally posted by Bountytaker

Exactly, beaker.....I mean, really, who spots someone 77 first half points as part of a plan to win it in the final seconds? This is why simple fixes don't seem to get done. Someone offeres a wildly unlikely scenario to discredit the change, and we end up stuck with the same, broken system, season after season.


But, there's even two options to prevent your goofy scenario:

1) The "switch" would turn on when the deficit is at a certain number, say 77. So, if the crappy team, down 77-0, came out in the second half, and scored right away, it would turn off, until the deficit was 77 again. Yes, that means the score could look out of hand again, like 87-9, etc.., but it would still keep the liklihood of 125+ down to almost nil.

2) The "switch" acts as a mercy rule. In effect, if you're down 77-0, you've lost. The sim will not allow you to come back. It'll play out the rest of the game, allowing teams to move the ball, but it won't let the team with 77 score anymore, and it won't let the team that's behind, win. So, no goofy "let them get ahead by 11 touchdowns, then we'll take them" problems.


Can't believe I had to even write those two. Sheesh.

.... sarcasm is really hard to put over the internets o.o


Ooops..yeah, I guess sometimes it is. By multiple people.

My bad doomstar. I retract my snarkiness.

Originally posted by Malachorn
OH MY GOD, French Lick deliberately used the scrimmages to see how bad we could be.

It was for testing purposes, as we're about to bring in pretty bad players and our defense was actually the main concern with a team like this.

So... is there really someone out there saying that this game is broken because a team that was trying to give you as many points as possible in those scrimmages is giving up too many points?!?!?!

I'll tell you this much:
I couldn't believe that our team kept both opponents under 255 points.

And what are you suggesting with this "switch?"
You say stats are meaningless but you still say the games will be played out - and they better or people would sure complain about loss of XP.

So all you really suggested was that stats shouldn't be kept track of.
Great idea, when the backups come in you don't think they're going to complain about why the starters should have stats that count and the backups shouldn't though?

Your "solution" would just piss more people off than anything else, dude.

I just noticed. . .Goal Line Blitz changed your name from French Lick Uranuses to French Lick Plutos yet you have a team that must be known as "The Cocks" and have had it for a while yet that is perfectly fine. . .

Malachorn...you don't seem to have any idea what I was talking about.

I don't care if a team tanks a scrimmage or two. And, I'm fine with teams being totally overmatched, and getting blown out.

What I think is ridiculous is that the designers want a realistic feeling American Football sim, but they allow totally unrealistic scores to happen with their sims. Whose going to take this sim seriously when they see 220-0, or 175-3? They're destroying their own credibility with scores like that.

And I KNOW they're trying to fix it. My point was, they're going about it bass-ackwards. They keep trying to stop teams from being gutted, cpu'd, etc.., so that unfair matchups won't occur. But, it should be obvious by now, that they could NEVER prevent all the bad matchups from occuring.

So, instead of spitting into the wind, why not take a different approach. Have a safety net in place for when bad matchups do occur. Have a piece of code that ensures that, when a good team plays a gutted team, which is inevitable, the score doesn't get into the hundreds. Why? Because, again, it looks silly for a realistic football game to have scores in the hundreds.

Call it a mercy rule, call it a deadman's swtich...whatever. Just stop putting every effort into the gutted teams, and put something into the lopsided scores.



As for the last part...I don't know if you understand how this game works. The only stat that gets you XP is snaps. If you're in for 90 plays, in a win or a loss, you get the same xp. So, if at 77-0, the game keeps having "snaps", but doesn't allow any scoring, then everyone will get the same xp they would now. Scoring six more five more td's doesn't get you anything more, so no one should complain...except those who are stat obsessed. And, really, what argument would they have...their padding their stats against a recognized bad team, for no exp gain whatsoever.

You can count all the stats you want. Just shut off the scoring when the game is 77-0 at the half. The backups, who have already been in I'm sure, will get plenty of exp., and still have stats...just not more scores that provide nothing except to make the sim look like a farce.

As for you final comment...I'm glad the worst players couldn't play a lick. The Dolphins were the worst team last year, and were no where near competative. How many 100-0 shutouts did they get handed. How about 200-0?

Let the bad teams suck. Just, for the sake of the "realism", and to make it less of a joke, lets cap the blowouts. Why would that be so bad?

and then the teams that play the gutted teams usually lose a lot of their energy

Originally posted by Beaker
I just noticed. . .Goal Line Blitz changed your name from French Lick Uranuses to French Lick Plutos yet you have a team that must be known as "The Cocks" and have had it for a while yet that is perfectly fine. . .


Yeah, evidently French Lick Uranuses is "racist."
...how silly is that, huh?

Originally posted by Bountytaker
What I think is ridiculous is that the designers want a realistic feeling American Football sim, but they allow totally unrealistic scores to happen with their sims. Whose going to take this sim seriously when they see 220-0, or 175-3? They're destroying their own credibility with scores like that.

Let me make this very clear:
We were TRYING to give you as many points as possible.
We really were.

Use some freakin' sense.
You can't see how relevant that is here?

It's not like two NFL-calber teams were playing and one was the Dolphins and one was the Patriots. It wasn't like that at all.

It's like an NFL team played a pee-wee team and the pee-wee team not only wanted to lose, but they were TRYING to lose by as many points as possible.

Short of the designers making it so both sides start to take knees and a team isn't allowed to do that, there's no real answers here. And no one wants both sides to have to take knees.




Originally posted by Bountytaker
And I KNOW they're trying to fix it. My point was, they're going about it bass-ackwards. They keep trying to stop teams from being gutted, cpu'd, etc.., so that unfair matchups won't occur. But, it should be obvious by now, that they could NEVER prevent all the bad matchups from occuring.

Duh. Why can't I see how many points I can lose by though?
It's a freaking game and if that's how I want to have fun...

Originally posted by Bountytaker
So, instead of spitting into the wind, why not take a different approach. Have a safety net in place for when bad matchups do occur. Have a piece of code that ensures that, when a good team plays a gutted team, which is inevitable, the score doesn't get into the hundreds. Why? Because, again, it looks silly for a realistic football game to have scores in the hundreds.

I already started to explain how that wouldn't even work, jackass.
Before you accuse ME of not knowing what you are suggesting (and I do), maybe you should re-read what I wrote about it.

If players aren't taking knees and the game is still being sim'd (like you said), but the sim will stop counting stats, then don't you think that the backups are going to complain a lot about why the starters get stats and the backups don't?

You weren't even suggesting that the game stops simming... just that the score freezes.
Is that all it's really about?

How about this? The sim goes on and all the stats count, but just so YOU can feel better about things, the score will show 14-0?

Hmmmms? Will that make you happy?
I think that's stupid.


Originally posted by Bountytaker
As for you final comment...I'm glad the worst players couldn't play a lick. The Dolphins were the worst team last year, and were no where near competative. How many 100-0 shutouts did they get handed. How about 200-0?

I think that's some of the problem.
You are being WAY too generous to compare French Lick to the Dolphins.
And the Dolphins would have tried to run out the time... French Lick WANTED you to score as many points as possible.
Again, I'm pissed that neither game was 255 or more points.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Let the bad teams suck. Just, for the sake of the "realism", and to make it less of a joke, lets cap the blowouts. Why would that be so bad?

Dude, I don't call it realistic to make up point totals.

And what happens when the game is simming and a team has too many points and it scores a touchdown? It just doesn't count, right? The game stops keeping score? That's retarded.

And, by the way, just think about the possible ramifications of your "mercy switch" - let's pretend that BOTH teams fucked up their tactics and want the other team to score... let's pretend that BOTH offenses are just really great.

What happens if BOTH teams score more than 77 points and the game stopped keeping score?

Is it a tie?

Try being more logical. Just because something feels good does not mean it makes good sense.