Warrior General Games

one thing we don't really know --- how does GLB define "drop"

just looking at NFL this weekend. I remember at least 2 balls that manning overthrew the receiver in the end zone. likewise - I remember 3 balls that brady slightly overthrew White on deeper balls.

in all 5 cases - I think the receiver might have gotten a finger on the ball. I imagine those would be considered 'drops' by GLB2




(but I agree - longer passes should be harder to catch than shorter ones when wide open)

Originally posted by Cuivienen
An uncontested catch is an uncontested catch. Deep uncontested should be relatively easy to catch too. Thing is, they should also get sacked or hurried more, defenders should get in position, deflection and cover tech should be more effective, and picks should happen more.

I wouldn't want to see the solution be a cheat to avoid fixing the sim.

I wouldn't want to have them break the balance of the sim.

If there's a level below Receiving Hands 100 at which a long pass can be caught without a significant risk of a drop, then that creates a cap on how high of Receiving Hands you need to never risk a drop. That number can be no less than 100 or everyone would cookie cutter to the optimal RH level and put everything else into contested stats. If he's not open, that's CiT. So we're talking open drops. Of course, the QB's Pass Technique is also a factor, so if that isn't also 100, even 100 RH has to allow for some long passes to be dropped. Or, in the clutch, if Receiving Consistency isn't also 100, there still have to be drops.

You may be distinguishing between "wide open" and "open," and that might be valid. I'm not sure that isn't already in the game, however; as my fastest WR's seem to drop fewer at any given level of RH than my not-so-fast ones.

I'll change my mind about whether there need to be more drops of long passes if someone wants to link some open builds showing that Vet receivers often take RH above 90. I know I tend to think of points above about 75-80 in that skill as wasted, which means on long passes there have to be more drops so that diversity in builds is not diminished...in addition to needing fewer long pass completions. Needing every point to never screw up at a given task is a huge enhancement to GLB2 over GLB1.

At the same time, if HB screens are to be viable, a screen pass can't require much more in RH than 25-30 to complete a good amount of the time to be useful, as HB's can't be expected to pile points into RH and also the rushing skills they need. Short passes can't be nearly that low, but need to be significantly easier to complete than long ones, and easier than they are. Dumps can be more screen-like in needed abilities, however.

That all points to, for game balance, drops needing to be very distance dependent.

Blah, didn't read the forums enough to catch that.

I like how the sneak peak is to "fix" something that doesn't matter. This would also make some of the Kicker SA's useless. Who could afford to go into Heart for Coverage Commander?

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
Blah, didn't read the forums enough to catch that.

I like how the sneak peak is to "fix" something that doesn't matter. This would also make some of the Kicker SA's useless. Who could afford to go into Heart for Coverage Commander?

It doesn't make it useless. I'd bet that on some FG's that are missed, Morale is a factor...meaning if someone didn't invest in Heart, maybe they should have.

At least one other needs there to be only one kicker to be worthwhile, "Follow Up" on which the kicker kicks farther after kicking a FG.

We're talking about deeper sim issues in this thread and others, and there are those. And while I'd love some to be addressed, they do take more time. Getting rid of "2 kickers for everyone" is a definite improvement that will take them very little time (a bit more time if they buff FG kicking, as they should and should to some extent regardless, as a part of it-- but not that much more time) and gets rid of cheese.

Originally posted by Nyria

We're talking about deeper sim issues in this thread and others, and there are those. And while I'd love some to be addressed, they do take more time. Getting rid of "2 kickers for everyone" is a definite improvement that will take them very little time (a bit more time if they buff FG kicking, as they should and should to some extent regardless, as a part of it-- but not that much more time) and gets rid of cheese.

Setting software priority is about a balance in finding time spent vs. value created. Sure the time spent in limiting teams to one Kicker is small. But the value is small (at least to the customers). People aren't raging that their teams aren't competitive because they have two kickers.

Since most teams have two kickers, it's a constant. A constant in a PvP-type game like GLB2 is something that has no net effect on the game. It's a limitation/benefit to both players. Therefore it cancels out.

***This is why no one is raging on the boards about carrying two kickers.***

And as such, the "value" of this fix is low in the eyes of the customers.

So while Bort/Cdog may WANT to change it and it's an easy change, they SHOULDN'T fix it until higher value fixes are done first. Fixes that take more coding time. That's fine. It's what we want. And then when some long-dated fixes finally take effect, then they can quick fix Kickers if they want.

But to do it now without other substantial improvements is INSANE.

Originally posted by Xars
Setting software priority is about a balance in finding time spent vs. value created. Sure the time spent in limiting teams to one Kicker is small. But the value is small (at least to the customers). People aren't raging that their teams aren't competitive because they have two kickers.

Since most teams have two kickers, it's a constant. A constant in a PvP-type game like GLB2 is something that has no net effect on the game. It's a limitation/benefit to both players. Therefore it cancels out.

***This is why no one is raging on the boards about carrying two kickers.***

And as such, the "value" of this fix is low in the eyes of the customers.


Well, rage would be too strong a word for me on the issue (even given that it's used more easily regarding the game than in real life), but I'll be pretty bothered if they don't go through with the kicker change: It would normally be a very small deal to me, but given the fact an Admin said it was definitely coming, I'd be bothered a lot by our not being able to take that as just about definite.

I qualified with "just about" only because if enough people had been raging against it (on its merits as opposed to the fact there are more important things to do), that would be the only case where I could see them saying "Well okay, everyone desperately wants 2 kickers per team, I guess we'll let you keep it." But that didn't happen.

The only thing in this thread I felt "rage" about was the suggestion that essentially RH over a given point shouldn't be needed, even for long passes...and to some extent the fact that pass distance has too little effect on the chance of completions. I definitely agree with you on screens, but I view it almost through the same PvP lens, that they won't work for my teams but won't work for anyone else's either. I'd like them fixed, but I can wait a season or two.

Originally posted by Xars

So while Bort/Cdog may WANT to change it and it's an easy change, they SHOULDN'T fix it until higher value fixes are done first.

But to do it now without other substantial improvements is INSANE.


I'd never say something shouldn't be fixed, even if other things are more important. They very likely have the code on some server to limit teams to one kicker, and all they have to do is install it. If that's the case, there is maybe 10 minutes it'll take them to upload the change, if that...and it would be insane not to do it.

If the kicker change hadn't been promised, I'd say the screen/pass length changes would be 10 times as important. Given the promise and my belief that if we're told something will happen, it should, I'd say it's more like 3 times as important. I think it will take more than 3 times as long to fix screens/pass length.

In fact, if they haven't already been working on screens, there's no way they could get improvements made and adequately tested by the end of the offseason, to make sure they don't go from very weak to overpowered. They could still tweak pass completion chances by distance somewhat without breaking anything, if they're cautious about it; but they can't do much more without testing they won't get done before S16 starts.

Originally posted by Nyria
I'd never say something shouldn't be fixed, even if other things are more important. They very likely have the code on some server to limit teams to one kicker, and all they have to do is install it. If that's the case, there is maybe 10 minutes it'll take them to upload the change, if that...and it would be insane not to do it.



You're missing something here.

This isn't a "bug". Having two Kickers, or one, isn't a "bug". It's game design.

Changing game design is completely different than fixing a bug.

If they are going to push people to one Kicker, whether they mentioned it or not, two things are going to happen:

Kickoff lengths are going to shorten.
FG % made is going to go down.

These aren't bug fixes. These are game design elements. If there aren't substantial other changes made that improve gameplay, most agents are going to conclude that the above two issues make a flawed game worse and not better.

That's why it's insane to do it. Coding/upload time is IRRELEVANT to the analysis.

I'm sorry you don't see it.

Originally posted by Xars
You're missing something here.

This isn't a "bug". Having two Kickers, or one, isn't a "bug". It's game design.

Changing game design is completely different than fixing a bug.

If they are going to push people to one Kicker, whether they mentioned it or not, two things are going to happen:

Kickoff lengths are going to shorten.
FG % made is going to go down.

These aren't bug fixes. These are game design elements. If there aren't substantial other changes made that improve gameplay, most agents are going to conclude that the above two issues make a flawed game worse and not better.


No, it fixes a design flaw. Because teams generally don't use all 43 roster spots due to S* salaries, and because kickers are cheap and you can use low level kickers for kickoffs, there's just about no tradeoff to using two kickers.

KO lengths going down is actually a very good thing. Then, as is done everywhere I know of where football is played, teams can kick off from the 35 without inordinate touchbacks.

FG% is too low already, it's true-- which is something the devs could easily fix regardless of the number of kickers.

But the most important factor is we were told it was coming. I actually felt enough uncertainty about what was happening that on the team I GM I didn't ask the FG kicker to add KO Power for what we were told was coming. I figured he can respec. But I'm sure there are people who trusted DD's statement enough that they had their FG kicker add KO Power. They can respec also, but they shouldn't have to.

If we're told a change will happen, it should happen, barring a very extreme backlash shortly after its announcement.

Originally posted by Nyria
No, it fixes a design flaw. Because teams generally don't use all 43 roster spots due to S* salaries, and because kickers are cheap and you can use low level kickers for kickoffs, there's just about no tradeoff to using two kickers.
I agree and disagree. I agree that its a design flaw. Teams started using two kickers because of the ineffectiveness of a single kicker. The shift to younger kickers happened as an after-effect since its not hard to build a KO specialist. The correction of this design flaw is only going to exacerbate the larger design flaw, that being the sad state of FG kickers. Without a significant buff, I'm scared to see how bad FG kicking will be.

Originally posted by Nyria
KO lengths going down is actually a very good thing. Then, as is done everywhere I know of where football is played, teams can kick off from the 35 without inordinate touchbacks.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/kickoff-touchback-pct

In 2015, 23 of 32 NFL teams had 50% of their kickoffs result in touchbacks. I don't know what you consider inordinate, but that's a lot of touchbacks. Without changes to SP costs, I suspect touchbacks will drop to below 40% for most teams (and even that is very optimistic).

Originally posted by Nyria
FG% is too low already, it's true-- which is something the devs could easily fix regardless of the number of kickers.

But the most important factor is we were told it was coming. I actually felt enough uncertainty about what was happening that on the team I GM I didn't ask the FG kicker to add KO Power for what we were told was coming. I figured he can respec. But I'm sure there are people who trusted DD's statement enough that they had their FG kicker add KO Power. They can respec also, but they shouldn't have to.

If we're told a change will happen, it should happen, barring a very extreme backlash shortly after its announcement.

If they implement the change, they should allow a full respec for all kickers (full respec, not just back to the previous season).

Full respec won't cut it, nobody has balanced builds. It'll be like a full real life year before most teams have halfway decent kickers in Veteran.

respect wont fix kickers. But no one cares about kickers, Leave them alone and fix other shit

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
If they implement the change, they should allow a full respec for all kickers (full respec, not just back to the previous season).

I have no problem with that, although if they don't they also ought to at least have a free (not counted against respec limits/costs) respec back to the beginning of the season for anyone who will have made the mistake of actually believing an admin when he said a change is coming.

Of course, if they go back on it, will anyone ever believe such warnings again?

And if the design flaw is intentionally preserved (I am actually starting to rage now. I'm hearing: "I need to be able to keep taking advantage of a design flaw I was given warning was going to be fixed!") then at least make people pay for it: For kickers only, their salaries should always have to be as if they were the max level for the league they're in...so at least it costs a non-trivial amount to have the second kicker. That's a kludge, which is why I'd rather see the one kicker rule implemented, but it's better than keeping the design flaw as is.

Early in the thread, all the good aspects of the change were brought up, from having to actually choose kickoffs vs. FG accuracy and the like.

For touchbacks, remember that at least if it were up to me, if the change is made, KO's will be from the 35. I don't know if when suggesting what the touchback % will be you're taking that into account. For FG%, it already needs to be improved. It will need a bigger improvement. Maybe seeing how badly FG's are kicked at that point will finally be the impetus to buff FG kicking (I can hope....) But at the very least with a full respec, it wouldn't be cataclysmic by any means.

On the first team I was involved with, where I'm Assistant GM and we were pretty much all fairly new starting up, the owner and GM (I joined during the season) made a mistake as far as exploiting the loophole was concerned: Despite having no S*'s and thus 43 roster spots, the team has only one kicker. And you know...he put some points into KO Power, so that while he gets very few TB's he does okay at kicking off, and he does fairly well by GLB standards with FG's. Single kickers are less bad than you think, although the team would definitely be better served by having two.

Originally posted by Nyria

But the most important factor is we were told it was coming. I actually felt enough uncertainty about what was happening that on the team I GM I didn't ask the FG kicker to add KO Power for what we were told was coming. I figured he can respec. But I'm sure there are people who trusted DD's statement enough that they had their FG kicker add KO Power. They can respec also, but they shouldn't have to.

If we're told a change will happen, it should happen, barring a very extreme backlash shortly after its announcement.

And this is where your argument fails.

Because no company has ever had a bad idea and than backtracked.

Call up Coca-Cola and demand your "New" Coke instead of Classic.

And I'm not asking for a backtrack, nor are most of the others posting. What we are asking for is proper priority of change implementations.

Saying they have to do X because they said it isn't logic. Bad ideas are bad ideas. They can either push it off or release it with a whole bunch of substantial fixes that have been in the queue for awhile and are about to be deployed.

Originally posted by Xars
Well I don't think any of us want them to not think it through.

I'm not sure the adjustments should be made based on the QB skills, but rather the receiver. HB screens have a high completion rate in the NFL due to a lack of a defender. It's an uncontested throw (well, designed that way at least).

What's needed is a huge buff to Rec Hands and Balance for open receivers behind the line of scrimmage. That way the determining factor is receiver position on the field. This could be extended to Short Passes as well to help those comp%. Long Passes should have a negative factor (or greater if one exists now) to Rec Hands.

The problem could simply be that distance isn't related at all/enough to the skill checks. So if you're only going to have a 45% completion rate anyway, then just throw for 10 yards.

All uncontested rolls need a huge buff, catching is the biggest one but awareness is way too tough right now also. You see guys run the wrong way and miss blocking assignments or run right past the ball carrier every once and awhile in the NFL, and it ends up on blooper reels. It happens almost every play in GLB2. Balance is another one, dudes fall down untouched constantly.

Contested rolls should be tough and that's where good player building will shine, but give us a break on the uncontested rolls.

Originally posted by Xars


And I'm not asking for a backtrack, nor are most of the others posting. What we are asking for is proper priority of change implementations.


It seems you are saying backtrack to backtrack, unless they don't have the code already written. If they do have it written, uploading it won't prevent any other changes that could happen.

You can't seriously be saying to hold back on a minor fix that's ready (it being ready is admittedly a guess) just because (assuming they don't) have fixes to more serious problems available.

Originally posted by Xars

Saying they have to do X because they said it isn't logic. Bad ideas are bad ideas.

Except it's a very good (if not so important) idea, was never raged against when it was brought up, and unless it was universally thought of as very bad from when it was announced (and then a week or two later withdrawn or something) they risk their warnings of changes no longer being taken seriously. Though actually, I worried they'd go back on it, meaning they already don't have the credibility they ought to have-- which was what drew me into the thread and probably led the OP to start it, to try to see it followed through upon.

Then we got into agreeing about screens and pass length and the like, but now we're back to the original idea I guess...and I am unfortunately getting wound up ("raging") about it. I hate when I get this way, over c change that isn't really that huge...but unfortunately I let it happen.