Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Bountytaker
I'm looking at the play right now. "Smooth Bastard pass to Francisco Franco, hurried by Arron Adams".

Arron Adams, CB2


Reading is fundamental

WATCH THE PLAY AGAIN!!!
Actually WATCH it.

I already told you exactly what happens.

Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by Bountytaker

Third, since the pass was "hurried", a sack, deflection, or incomplete all would have been "realistic" in that sense.

Oh, and if you go back and look at that play then you'll see there was NO pressure on that play and the QB got rid of the ball the moment the CB was not picked up by the LT and there was a HINT of pressure.

That's how the sim works. The QB was giving the WR the most amount of time possible, to prevent any defender from reacting and making a possible play. Basically, the QB "knows" that the WR is wide open and he's just sorta waiting for the best time to actually release the ball.

Learn the game.

Just because the sim is programmed to recognise that as a hurry does NOT mean that the QB in the game feels pressure.

The "hurry" only actually counts as a "trigger" in that case to release the ball.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Here's another suggestion...the "switch" would force the team up by 77 to use the entire 35 sec. play clock between plays.


Now we're talking about messing with the play clock and number of plays people get... that's messing with XP, genius.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Just forcing the full use of the playclock would probably help a bunch.....

You are SO clueless.

Guys, I do not think it matters at ALL if someone manages to score 200 points on someone. I can see that score is unrealistic, but this is an online game that uses levels to determine skill. There are always going to be horrible mismatches and horrible mismatches should turn into horribly lopsided scores. USC beating a middle school football team 200-0 is a lot more realistic then USC beating a middle school football team 77-0.

If you want, you should just have a mercy rule like in baseball. When you are up by 77 the game ends and everyone on both teams gets max exp. This would help the crappier team catch up in levels if this happens consistently and the dominating team would almost certainly get max exp for all its players anyway, so what does that matter?

Originally posted by Beaker
Guys, I do not think it matters at ALL if someone manages to score 200 points on someone. I can see that score is unrealistic, but this is an online game that uses levels to determine skill. There are always going to be horrible mismatches and horrible mismatches should turn into horribly lopsided scores. USC beating a middle school football team 200-0 is a lot more realistic then USC beating a middle school football team 77-0.

If you want, you should just have a mercy rule like in baseball. When you are up by 77 the game ends and everyone on both teams gets max exp. This would help the crappier team catch up in levels if this happens consistently and the dominating team would almost certainly get max exp for all its players anyway, so what does that matter?

(insert rant about how that could be abused)

Originally posted by Malachorn
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=79345&pbp_id=281767

Jackass.
What happens there?
Is the WR supposed to just stop and decide not to score?

How about the WR never had the ball to begin with because the QB decided to hand the ball to the HB instead.

Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by Bountytaker

Here's another suggestion...the "switch" would force the team up by 77 to use the entire 35 sec. play clock between plays.


Now we're talking about messing with the play clock and number of plays people get... that's messing with XP, genius.

Originally posted by Bountytaker

Just forcing the full use of the playclock would probably help a bunch.....

You are SO clueless.

At a point that it's already maxed out, most likely. At a point when the backups should be getting their snaps anyway, and are greatful to get as many plays as they can.

Oh wait, that's right...you don't care about the backups, or the exp. You're happy to have the starters roll up meaningless stats in a manner that makes the design of the game look silly.


Geez man, I don't get why you have to defend such a ridiculous score. You did your experiment, in part, to PROVE that we could get ridiculous scores. It made a GREAT point. I actually appreciate it. It's good proof that the attempts to simply "balance" teams and prevent "gutting" will never be catchall solution. So, why not work, now, to prevent them from hapening in the full release of the game? Why do you have to be an ass, and defend the system that blatantly makes the game look foolish?

Originally posted by Beaker
Guys, I do not think it matters at ALL if someone manages to score 200 points on someone. I can see that score is unrealistic, but this is an online game that uses levels to determine skill. There are always going to be horrible mismatches and horrible mismatches should turn into horribly lopsided scores. USC beating a middle school football team 200-0 is a lot more realistic then USC beating a middle school football team 77-0.

If you want, you should just have a mercy rule like in baseball. When you are up by 77 the game ends and everyone on both teams gets max exp. This would help the crappier team catch up in levels if this happens consistently and the dominating team would almost certainly get max exp for all its players anyway, so what does that matter?

Call me when USC plays a middle school team, for real, and then I'll concede your hypothesis.

Or, better yet, let me know when the designers of this sim announce that it's purpose was not to mimic ACTUAL football, but, instead, to bring to life "what if" scenarios, such as the one you suggest, or an imaginary football game between robots and hobgoblins.

In other words...we talked about that already. It's the REALISM that is affected. 200+ to 0 sends out the message that the sim here is poorly built, since it gives UNREALISTIC scores. Blowouts are fine. Sucky teams should suck. Instead of trying to fix them, lets do something about how they look to the potential audience of the game.

Originally posted by Doomsday
How about the WR never had the ball to begin with because the QB decided to hand the ball to the HB instead.



Jesus, fine.
Ignore the fact that now we're talking about taking away the Advanced Tactics for those teams at that time and the ability of the owner to actually call their own plays... the first play I showed was a run play.

Barring this asinine idea that this guy has to make good players bad and bad players good, the offense still scores on this shitty defense.

You don't like the final score? Well, I argue that fucking with the teams would make the stats even MORE meaningless.

And, again, those backups are not going to be happy that their good players have to have bad stats just because the starters performed so well.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
At a point that it's already maxed out, most likely. At a point when the backups should be getting their snaps anyway, and are greatful to get as many plays as they can.


I brought a DE on to the Cocks (my own player) that is ONLY going to play kick coverage. I'm bringing an OL of mine to only play kick returns.

They should NEVER get max xp.

Most backup QBs should never just be given max xp.

But I can at least appreciate the idea of calling the game and giving everyone max XP.

Sure, why not?
I bet you get A LOT of teams trying to be as shitty as possible.
You really want to make the whole game be filled with more than half of the teams just trying to be unbelievably bad and having 2 bad teams meet and agree on the tactics they can both use just to make sure one wins by too much so BOTH can get max XP?

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.

Can I claim that game plan as intentional rather than as an Advanced Offense Settings screw up?

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Geez man, I don't get why you have to defend such a ridiculous score. You did your experiment, in part, to PROVE that we could get ridiculous scores. It made a GREAT point. I actually appreciate it. It's good proof that the attempts to simply "balance" teams and prevent "gutting" will never be catchall solution. So, why not work, now, to prevent them from hapening in the full release of the game? Why do you have to be an ass, and defend the system that blatantly makes the game look foolish?



You really think the game looks less foolish by ignoring the quality of players and having level 1 CPUs start to beat the snot out of the best teams in GLB?

What do you think people will think of the game if they see that?

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Call me when USC plays a middle school team, for real, and then I'll concede your hypothesis.

That's just it.
You won't see that, but if you did then it would be comparable to the game you saw.
These were the worst players using the worst settings

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Or, better yet, let me know when the designers of this sim announce that it's purpose was not to mimic ACTUAL football, but, instead, to bring to life "what if" scenarios, such as the one you suggest, or an imaginary football game between robots and hobgoblins.

To a point, but an owner should have a lot of say in the matter!
And this is NOT the NFL and should never be... this IS a game - one of the reasons I'm not for players always being trapped on teams.

Like it or not, you have to make concessions to the fact that this is a football GAME and to not realise that is to have no concept of reality.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
In other words...we talked about that already. It's the REALISM that is affected. 200+ to 0 sends out the message that the sim here is poorly built, since it gives UNREALISTIC scores. Blowouts are fine. Sucky teams should suck. Instead of trying to fix them, lets do something about how they look to the potential audience of the game.


Level 1 CPUs destroying the best teams in football would send a STRONGER message that the sim is "broke" and, again, I REALLY don't want to see all those reports in Bugs.

Look, I appreciate that you don't like it... but your ideas are preposterous and counter-productive.

Originally posted by Bountytaker
Sucky teams should suck.

According to you they should only suck for 77 points and then they should become football Gods.

Originally posted by Beaker
horrible mismatches should turn into horribly lopsided scores. USC beating a middle school football team 200-0 is a lot more realistic then USC beating a middle school football team 77-0.

this says everything that needs to be said, IMO...anyone who can't see the truth here is blind.