Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I'm starting to become a fan of yours, Ph33p. Good stuff.

I'm Ph33P's biggest fan, dude is a machine for the game and wanting to improve - but doing it in a fun way and testing everything properly.

He and I often have long conversations about what the real mechanics are going on behind the players, it's good fun - and he's definitely better than me at all the stuff I thought I was good at, he's got 7 championships already and I think I have 5 in all my time

Originally posted by Raid
I made a post about that once, people told me to gameplan around zone better.

I really don't think zone is much of an issue as it is - but this one thing does bother me - that QBs can't read underneath guys properly and throw it right at them unpressured even with high morale.

Maybe it’s a build issue? Low pass awareness or accuracy?

Many of the issues people cry about are build issues.

fIx yOuR bUiLdS

Originally posted by Cybertron
Maybe it’s a build issue? Low pass awareness or accuracy?

Many of the issues people cry about are build issues.

fIx yOuR bUiLdS

Was an awareness/accuracy build I was using at the time, but this happens to more than just me.

Originally posted by Raid
Was an awareness/accuracy build I was using at the time, but this happens to more than just me.

Hmmmm....what was the acc and awareness?

Originally posted by ThePh33P
to be fair to the game though you can say that exact sentence for any number of things related to game balance. Fumbles,Brtk or CIT

It's curious to see 3+ Interceptions a game as being too high but 33 Broken tackles a game isn't being brought up? RiF averaged 14 sacks a game should tunnel vision be addressed? DL are measured in the HUNDREDS of rev pancakes do they need a nerf? This hyper focus on zone interceptions is strange when you should really be looking at if they are contested or not.

I agree non-contested zone interceptions should be toned down. But zone should to be able to better contest at the point of catch. ESPECIALLY the deep zones.

Speaking to the deep zones EOTP should be able to activate in any zone it doesn't do enough in deep coverage to play near as much of a role as it does underneath and it looks cool out there. so far the only ints I've had in deep coverage with eotp active is on deep overthrows which makes sense and is thematic to that type of deep secondary player.



Well you haven't been here for all 55 seasons so a lot of this has been discussed and brought about code modifications.

Example: DL revcakes are high because OLine SP costs where linear but are now more parabolic. If not, the OLine can dominate too easily. So yes, the DL revcakes are high but it's because they have to be. The DL only wins if they knock the OL down. Winning a "roll" doesn't mean you win on the play.

Also, and this is critical, all of the other things you've mentioned are available to everyone at the start of the building process and well known. You can build a Power HB that gets lots of Break Tackles. You can also build a Combo or Elusive type and have success with all of them. Everyone can build high revcake DL.

The Man versus Zone issue is a bit different in that typically you're going to pick one scheme and run that. Most of the Zone plays that generate high INTs are formation and personnel mismatches. Quite frankly, that's a gimmick that doesn't work in the real world (NFL). No one puts 4 LBs on the field against 3WR or 4WR personnel and yet it happens in GLB2 all the time.

It happens because it works. No denying that. But it shouldn't. To eventually get to the right place, Zone needs proper plays that provide for an appropriate matchup of formation and personnel. You can't look at the code and make changes of how the personnel matchup is happening if you don't first give people the ability to match up personnel and formation. Man can and Zone can't. So any code change on this issue really hurts Zone.

And that's not how you preserve game balance. The effectiveness of Man needs to = the effectiveness of Zone, with different inputs. The problem is how those inputs are generated on the Zone side.

No one puts 4 LBs on the field against 3WR or 4WR personnel and yet it happens in GLB2 all the time.

This only happens because CB's are so damn expensive (salary)

Originally posted by Adderfist
No one puts 4 LBs on the field against 3WR or 4WR personnel and yet it happens in GLB2 all the time.

This only happens because CB's are so damn expensive (salary)

You could always run a WR screen. That should kill it.

Originally posted by Cybertron
You could always run a WR screen. That should kill it.

Or get sacked because screens are suspect.

Originally posted by Adderfist
Or get sacked because screens are suspect.

WR screens?

Originally posted by Adderfist
No one puts 4 LBs on the field against 3WR or 4WR personnel and yet it happens in GLB2 all the time.

This only happens because CB's are so damn expensive (salary)

And CBs just don't bring value to the table in Zone like a LB does.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
And CBs just don't bring value to the table in Zone like a LB does.

Today true.

Does it have to be true for every day in the future? Hopefully not.

Originally posted by Cybertron
You could always run a WR screen. That should kill it.

The Screens are problematic.

You can have more passing plays where the HB goes to the weak side. Currently for those 2 plays it's a screen-like route. There should be more route options for the HB to attack the weak side.

Currently, I'm more focused on having the playbook flushed out for all of the formations. They've added Dives, Slams and Off Tackle runs when those plays have been missing.

Originally posted by Cybertron
Hmmmm....what was the acc and awareness?

85 acc and 90 pass aware I think. Unfortunately not a superstar.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
And CBs just don't bring value to the table in Zone like a LB does.

Myrik -

I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on this issue.

You're asking for more hitting power on CBs in your changelog post.

CBs should be able to get a tad more hitting power, this might open up to more CB heavier plays instead of LB heavier plays.

I have a thought but I'd like to hear your thought process on it first.

Originally posted by Xars
Myrik -

I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on this issue.

You're asking for more hitting power on CBs in your changelog post.

CBs should be able to get a tad more hitting power, this might open up to more CB heavier plays instead of LB heavier plays.

I have a thought but I'd like to hear your thought process on it first.






CBs are expensive cap wise and are weakest in power tackling. That's just it.