Warrior General Games

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Me too tbh, but I am not afraid of a change since I am confident the testers would not allow something like that to go live or hit the regular season.

O_o

Originally posted by David Stern
Instead of fixing the pathing, which I don't think can be done, without a complete sim over haul. And bort sure as hell doesn't want to listen to fix the pathing. Lets try a different direction with this.

Vision should just give a boost to doing certain things offensively, instead of it being a pathing issue.
Ex:
Wr: high vision = higher fake %, higher catch ball %,
Hb: High vision = higher fake %, and a % boost to doing certain things to make a play with the ball
Qb: High vision = hit open hb (yeah right )
You get it? I wouldn't take the pathing angle bc we are so far away from that, I would try the approach of lets actually just get vision to do SOMETHING

So...make Vision the same as carrying, except without the anti-fumble thing?

Yep, I agree with that too.

Originally posted by Hagalaz
Small offtopic suggestion: Have threads that compile the concerns of the community over one issue. In this case elusive running. Let me give you an example:

- Super elusive works poorly because of pathing
- vision has a strange behavior for elusive HBs
- agility-based HBs should be viable too, not just speed and break tackle backs
- defenders can recover "too quickly" from a fake or juke
- it's impossible to give real examples of elusive HBs in the current sim since no one builds them since they aren't as effective
- fake implementation in GLB is not very realistic

Something like this, in a public place everyone can consult, but only editable by specific mods. It would make it more visible BOTH WAYS, not only for bort, but for the community, that the issues existing in the game ARE being acknowledged.

Now more ontopic, if something IS done to elusive backs (good, cause I wanted to try and build one like that) remember the balance between D and O mustn't really be upset too much.

Pretty good summation.

Wow. I got totally ignored by everyone but Stout? Come on! LOL (Page 49 for the kids at home who missed it).

Originally posted by jrry32
So is strength and breaking tackles. Yet my RB with no SAs can break 139 tackles on 139 touches, I guess that's messed up, right?
No, o' clueless one. Running through tackles simply with strength is something that powerful runners can do without any particular skills. Meanwhile stiff arming is actually a skill that allows runners to break tackles without letting the defender engage their body.


Refrigerator Perry was able to break tackles. He wasn't able to stiff arm or fake.

Originally posted by Deathblade


So...make Vision the same as carrying, except without the anti-fumble thing?

I agree with that.

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
This is pretty crazy that we have 45+ pages of which 20+ pages are arguing what a freaking build should even look like to be tested.

There needs to be Archetypes in this game. It has been 13 seasons. And many of us know there are only a few ways to build certain players that are successful in the sim. That was fine and dandy when the sim was originally built. But now the sim is getting to the stage where it needs to mature and different types of builds need to be created and truly tested to determine if they can work or not.

Now that active agents have built dots from their creation date - all the way through the plateau - 440 days... Many of us know what is even feasible to obtain within that dots life cycle in terms of SP allocation. We need to take this knowledge, and apply it to the positions in this sim.

What type of builds are feasible?
What kind of players we watching on Sundays?
And how would that player translate into a build in GLB?
What would that dots build plan look like after 440 days? At the pinnacle of their career?

These type of builds should be documented - transferred over to the Test Server, and tested.

There is no reason not to. We should know if an Eric Metcalf type of build is even working in the sim (It's not). If it's not... Then, why? What needs to be coded differently to get that type of dot factored into the game without compromising the integrity of the sim?

Because if we are truly trying to replicate what we see on Sunday - which I know I am. I want my dots to emulate my 'fantasy football squad'... Then we need better communication and working together as a community. I would hope that we could all agree that this should be a reality after all this time fussing.

I'm with you TV

Originally posted by Deathblade
So...make Vision the same as carrying, except without the anti-fumble thing?

Um, Make vision serve a purpose. Any purpose.

Originally posted by David Stern
Um, Make vision serve a purpose. Any purpose.

Vision serves a purpose. It allows the HB to identify many threats to pinwheel between.

Originally posted by kurieg
Originally posted by jrry32

So is strength and breaking tackles. Yet my RB with no SAs can break 139 tackles on 139 touches, I guess that's messed up, right?

Strength and break tackles is not a real skill. I was running over people in 4th grade.

Originally posted by blln4lyf

You and JD have been saying there is a lose of balance in the sim during cuts/etc. atm. I would be fine with him making that more apparent against outmatched opponents, and that way you would not need to nerf SAs.

Actually, I never said loss of balance, because balance is a very definite "thing" in GLB, and I'm not sure it's affected.

What I was talking about is pathing decisions being affected, which isn't the same.

But really, I do not like shifting more to base attributes and away from SAs. If anything, I think the opposite should happen.

The common elusive back is almost non-viable without SA's at the high levels, unlike any other position in the game. I seriously do not think that applies to them and once again we will not see eye to eye no matter how much discussion. I respect your opinion but think you are dead wrong about the fact that quick cuts, cut backs, or any other type of cut(and a cut can be fake) should not be able to lead to a loss of balance.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Originally posted by kurieg

Originally posted by Bukowski


I don't really think the balance is wrong for Power Backs.

If he really fixed pathing, then I would agree with what you're saying. But as it stands now, I just think it wouldn't hurt for the Elusive SAs to have a very slight bump, if anything.

As long as he doesn't do both. Both really worries me - home run hitting out of control imo.

Me too tbh, but I am not afraid of a change since I am confident the testers would not allow something like that to go live or hit the regular season.

Was there a bit of humor in this post? Not sure but I laughed anyway.

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Wow. I got totally ignored by everyone but Stout? Come on! LOL (Page 49 for the kids at home who missed it).

I'm not even reading half of these posts.....this subject is beating a dead horse....I just have my search function turned on to search my name at all times, only reason I seen this post.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Hagalaz

Small offtopic suggestion: Have threads that compile the concerns of the community over one issue. In this case elusive running. Let me give you an example:

- Super elusive works poorly because of pathing
- vision has a strange behavior for elusive HBs
- agility-based HBs should be viable too, not just speed and break tackle backs
- defenders can recover "too quickly" from a fake or juke
- it's impossible to give real examples of elusive HBs in the current sim since no one builds them since they aren't as effective
- fake implementation in GLB is not very realistic

Something like this, in a public place everyone can consult, but only editable by specific mods. It would make it more visible BOTH WAYS, not only for bort, but for the community, that the issues existing in the game ARE being acknowledged.

Now more ontopic, if something IS done to elusive backs (good, cause I wanted to try and build one like that) remember the balance between D and O mustn't really be upset too much.

Pretty good summation.

Not bad. 7.5/10.

Originally posted by David Stern
Um, Make vision serve a purpose. Any purpose.

Vision does serve a purpose.

It allows you to take the best path.

We should fix the fact that the best path isn't the best path, rather than just nuke the entire idea and make it Carrying2.