Warrior General Games

Originally posted by william78
Said it a bunch of times - not your guy's fault at all - just game creators/moderators - but personally I prefer a bunch of different teams with different playing styles, strengths and weaknesses they have character.

The developers aren't the ones that make the players and teams.

We can make adjustments so a different play with a different build is better, but then people just end up spamming that play and that build. But like, a game where every option is always equally viable and people can do whatever they want and have the same amount of success as anyone else isn't exactly going to be an interesting game for long.

Something is always going to have the best chance of winning, and competitive people are always going to gravitate towards it. That's just the nature of competitive games, it's the same conundrum across the board in every PvP game in existence, from Counterstrike to social deduction games to billion dollar sport franchises like Madden. Unfortunately, you either need to lean into it or figure out how to derive enjoyment within that system.

You can try a lot of different playstyles and have varying levels of success, or you can play the best build and have the most success. That's just how the cookies crumble. I choose to be a Torb main.

That's honestly why I've always said the game needs more people like GE. He's not afraid to run something strange and anti-meta, and will keep at it until he finds a way to make it work in some capacity. A dozen or so prominent agents like GE and this game would look wildly different.

Originally posted by Corndog
The developers aren't the ones that make the players and teams.

We can make adjustments so a different play with a different build is better, but then people just end up spamming that play and that build. But like, a game where every option is always equally viable and people can do whatever they want and have the same amount of success as anyone else isn't exactly going to be an interesting game for long.

Something is always going to have the best chance of winning, and competitive people are always going to gravitate towards it. That's just the nature of competitive games, it's the same conundrum across the board in every PvP game in existence, from Counterstrike to social deduction games to billion dollar sport franchises like Madden. Unfortunately, you either need to lean into it or figure out how to derive enjoyment within that system.

In my experience, the way large game franchises usually keep things fresh is through meta shifts from frequent, and often deliberately imbalanced, patch notes. I really dislike that, and I agree that a game without some sort of competitive hierarchy in strategy is too unrewarding, which is why I most enjoy when games implement temporary/seasonal leagues with incentives to play the game in ways it's never been played before, or alternate game modes entirely (but still based on the systems of the original game). I know that comes with its own fair share of implementation issues, though, and can often stretch a playerbase too thin.

Originally posted by Kvothe27
In my experience, the way large game franchises usually keep things fresh is through meta shifts from frequent, and often deliberately imbalanced, patch notes.

Or, releasing a new game every year, that's essentially the same thing with something different broken, and charging full price for it. Madden has released, what, seven new games since GLB2 launched?

Originally posted by william78
Oh I 100% don't mean Bo and you should already know that. -

It's aimed where its aimed not at anyone in particular but at repetative play calling which some don't mind but which would quite literally make me have to seriously contemplate whether I want to watch a GLB2 replay with the same blitz package called 20 times a game or the same pass play called 20 times a game or if I want to spend the afternoon more productively say alphabitizing my neighbhors salsa collection even though I don't listen to the music or organizing a little old-ladies knick-knack drawer or organizing a pile of sand by color and size of grainular sand.

I mean I'm sure some people find those last 3 interesting too but I love The Empire Strikes Back - I wouldn't want to watch it every evening for 30 nights straight.



I at least try to run as many plays as possible, though on defense I'm forced at times to get leaner depending on the OC of the other team... but even then most games I have a full 15 play selection for the most part. I always wanted to take advantage of the variety bonus, especially on offense. I always felt that the more offensive plays a team ran the harder it was to defend against

Originally posted by Corndog
Or, releasing a new game every year, that's essentially the same thing with something different broken, and charging full price for it. Madden has released, what, seven new games since GLB2 launched?

If you wanna cal them “new” apart from their series X version it’s the same broken game

Originally posted by Corndog

We can make adjustments so a different play with a different build is better, but then people just end up spamming that play and that build. But like, a game where every option is always equally viable and people can do whatever they want and have the same amount of success as anyone else isn't exactly going to be an interesting game for long.


I do so miss your general sense of fatalism when you don't post often enough. You have a talent for suggesting an action at the extreme end of the spectrum - it would be like having a customer on a car lot go "you know I might be interested in seeing that model with a sun roof" and you'd slap the customer and scream at the top of your lungs "do you know how expensive it is to make every care a full up covertible!"

Equality of all options isn't a request - that said I don't think your premise is sound that there must always be a "best play". What I'm suggesting is that "gamebalance" which actually is always on the creator of the game whether that's Chess or WoW or tiddlywinks really more take the form of some plays being asymetrically bad or asymetrically good based on what's called against them:

Certainly everyone would agree some plays should work better against cover 1 or cover 2. What's never been "correct" in terms of balance is the risk/reward on blitz. I ran some numbers last night using the Scout tool against some of the more popular blitzes the numbers are pretty overwhelming at all-tiers.

There are whole sets of 4 WR short plays vs. Zeb that have/had no completions - that doesn't really make very much sense - not saying it isn't viable to blitz those but really that play shouold end in one of 3 ways: (1) the blitz causes a sack (2) the blitz causes an errant bad pass (3) it's an easy completion to whomever is covered by the ILB / FS - the concept of mismatches - and thus the concept of counter-balance is missing.

There are Hall of Fame LB's who can't cover an even mediocre receiver one on one - most LBs can't its why they are LBs not DB's.

That's my point the risk/reward is off when someone 100% knows something is coming even an average team or inferior team should get a bigger reward for success.

Sometimes that does happen but not nearly enough , i.e. it only effects "some" parts of the game not others https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/788614 This is the game that impressed the hell out of me last year - I got pounded 35-0 nothing in a 27-3 season by a team I had just beaten fairly convincngly the week before. What happened , well Osiris and the Jammers had gotten burned by my long passing game the previous game - they decided to double down against it. I on the other hand got lazy ..and quite frankly a little stat hungry and decided that since I burned them a half dozen times on longer passing route why not a bakers dozen the next game.....they handed me my lunch with a little sarachia and garnish.

Some plays/styles of play have critical risk against some other plays - some do not and if you are in a really bad play vs its counter you should expect to be burned by even relatively inferior builds (not saying Jammers are inferior) but I'm suggesting the variance in play vs. play matchup should be higher.

That could be solved any number of ways - but I'm not asking you to nerf or create a great equilibirum among builds just suggesting that for all moves X there should be move Z that makes X a really bad decision and move Q that allows X to be an even better decision than before along with move A which has pluses or minuses based on speciifc builds. Thats the thing you say ah the game favors this as "best" I think anytime as the game creator you see "best" you should be thinking "ok what tool can I provide players to make a counter against what is currently best" thats not a nerf or anything like that we just call it strategy.

Originally posted by william78
I do so miss your general sense of fatalism when you don't post often enough. You have a talent for suggesting an action at the extreme end of the spectrum - it would be like having a customer on a car lot go "you know I might be interested in seeing that model with a sun roof" and you'd slap the customer and scream at the top of your lungs "do you know how expensive it is to make every care a full up covertible!"

Equality of all options isn't a request - that said I don't think your premise is sound that there must always be a "best play". What I'm suggesting is that "gamebalance" which actually is always on the creator of the game whether that's Chess or WoW or tiddlywinks really more take the form of some plays being asymetrically bad or asymetrically good based on what's called against them:

Certainly everyone would agree some plays should work better against cover 1 or cover 2. What's never been "correct" in terms of balance is the risk/reward on blitz. I ran some numbers last night using the Scout tool against some of the more popular blitzes the numbers are pretty overwhelming at all-tiers.

There are whole sets of 4 WR short plays vs. Zeb that have/had no completions - that doesn't really make very much sense - not saying it isn't viable to blitz those but really that play shouold end in one of 3 ways: (1) the blitz causes a sack (2) the blitz causes an errant bad pass (3) it's an easy completion to whomever is covered by the ILB / FS - the concept of mismatches - and thus the concept of counter-balance is missing.

There are Hall of Fame LB's who can't cover an even mediocre receiver one on one - most LBs can't its why they are LBs not DB's.

That's my point the risk/reward is off when someone 100% knows something is coming even an average team or inferior team should get a bigger reward for success.

Sometimes that does happen but not nearly enough , i.e. it only effects "some" parts of the game not others https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/788614 This is the game that impressed the hell out of me last year - I got pounded 35-0 nothing in a 27-3 season by a team I had just beaten fairly convincngly the week before. What happened , well Osiris and the Jammers had gotten burned by my long passing game the previous game - they decided to double down against it. I on the other hand got lazy ..and quite frankly a little stat hungry and decided that since I burned them a half dozen times on longer passing route why not a bakers dozen the next game.....they handed me my lunch with a little sarachia and garnish.

Some plays/styles of play have critical risk against some other plays - some do not and if you are in a really bad play vs its counter you should expect to be burned by even relatively inferior builds (not saying Jammers are inferior) but I'm suggesting the variance in play vs. play matchup should be higher.

That could be solved any number of ways - but I'm not asking you to nerf or create a great equilibirum among builds just suggesting that for all moves X there should be move Z that makes X a really bad decision and move Q that allows X to be an even better decision than before along with move A which has pluses or minuses based on speciifc builds. Thats the thing you say ah the game favors this as "best" I think anytime as the game creator you see "best" you should be thinking "ok what tool can I provide players to make a counter against what is currently best" thats not a nerf or anything like that we just call it strategy.

Amen

Great game between IF and Bill's Special Brownies. IF, down 1 around mid-field with one last chance but his TE's hands turn to stone. Huge win by agerm73.

https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/798612/792159

GG iRock!!! Had me on the edge of my seat the whole game!

Originally posted by william78
I do so miss your general sense of fatalism when you don't post often enough. You have a talent for suggesting an action at the extreme end of the spectrum - it would be like having a customer on a car lot go "you know I might be interested in seeing that model with a sun roof" and you'd slap the customer and scream at the top of your lungs "do you know how expensive it is to make every care a full up covertible!"

Equality of all options isn't a request - that said I don't think your premise is sound that there must always be a "best play". What I'm suggesting is that "gamebalance" which actually is always on the creator of the game whether that's Chess or WoW or tiddlywinks really more take the form of some plays being asymetrically bad or asymetrically good based on what's called against them:

Certainly everyone would agree some plays should work better against cover 1 or cover 2. What's never been "correct" in terms of balance is the risk/reward on blitz. I ran some numbers last night using the Scout tool against some of the more popular blitzes the numbers are pretty overwhelming at all-tiers.

There are whole sets of 4 WR short plays vs. Zeb that have/had no completions - that doesn't really make very much sense - not saying it isn't viable to blitz those but really that play shouold end in one of 3 ways: (1) the blitz causes a sack (2) the blitz causes an errant bad pass (3) it's an easy completion to whomever is covered by the ILB / FS - the concept of mismatches - and thus the concept of counter-balance is missing.

There are Hall of Fame LB's who can't cover an even mediocre receiver one on one - most LBs can't its why they are LBs not DB's.

That's my point the risk/reward is off when someone 100% knows something is coming even an average team or inferior team should get a bigger reward for success.

Sometimes that does happen but not nearly enough , i.e. it only effects "some" parts of the game not others https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/788614 This is the game that impressed the hell out of me last year - I got pounded 35-0 nothing in a 27-3 season by a team I had just beaten fairly convincngly the week before. What happened , well Osiris and the Jammers had gotten burned by my long passing game the previous game - they decided to double down against it. I on the other hand got lazy ..and quite frankly a little stat hungry and decided that since I burned them a half dozen times on longer passing route why not a bakers dozen the next game.....they handed me my lunch with a little sarachia and garnish.

Some plays/styles of play have critical risk against some other plays - some do not and if you are in a really bad play vs its counter you should expect to be burned by even relatively inferior builds (not saying Jammers are inferior) but I'm suggesting the variance in play vs. play matchup should be higher.

That could be solved any number of ways - but I'm not asking you to nerf or create a great equilibirum among builds just suggesting that for all moves X there should be move Z that makes X a really bad decision and move Q that allows X to be an even better decision than before along with move A which has pluses or minuses based on speciifc builds. Thats the thing you say ah the game favors this as "best" I think anytime as the game creator you see "best" you should be thinking "ok what tool can I provide players to make a counter against what is currently best" thats not a nerf or anything like that we just call it strategy.

Wow...this is a very good post

Originally posted by agerm73
GG iRock!!! Had me on the edge of my seat the whole game!

GG to you both - not surpirsed it was a defensive barn burner

GG Olympus!

Beat my ass up and down the field!

GG RRR. Between being the beneficiaries of heavy rain and some high risk trickery that doesn't work more than once, future matchups should be way more in your favor. Now we're even for you beating my ass three times last season! (and with a full CPU team)

Take THAT CPU!

https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/798620