Warrior General Games

Originally posted by flynn
You don't seem to get what I'm saying
I want more time on passing plays
I don't want my qb getting sacked 11 times a game
And I don't think taking away the option to throw a pass for no gain should be considered an exploit, that's ludicrous
I have to allow my team the option of throwing a dumb pass?
Why?
Is that not the opposite of an exploit, a dumb thing that shouldn't happen?

I know why you want it. I don't currently care much about sack vs. non sack but that is just an extra added bonus to the fact I am not targeting HB/FB for 1 yard and wasting a play in rookie.

Originally posted by flynn
And nfl teams frequently hold backs in to block just because they can't catch but they don't want to take the back out because it gives up that you're running a passing play

Also not the same thing. It isn't about whether your back can catch or not catch. It is targeting someone who isn't going to net much for yardage in comparison to someone who is. Drew Bree's doesn't skip over Khiry Robinson because he isn't Darren Sproles.

Originally posted by Time Trial
So the counter is a dogs blitz where if the man coverage player stays in to block an extra defender, you add an extra blitzer.

What is the counter? You blitz'd an extra guy into my extra blocker and I secured the targets I wanted in the first place? In Vet league I would laugh at that all day. In rookie I would take probably a similar amount of sacks but at least my plays would be 10 yards in comparison to 1.

Originally posted by Time Trial
So the counter is a dogs blitz where if the man coverage player stays in to block an extra defender, you add an extra blitzer.

What bhall is saying is that in the NFL, you can have your HB go out on a route and tell your QB "Never throw it to the HB. If you throw it to the HB, you're gonna spend all day Monday doing burpies and suicides." In GLB2, if your HB is on a route, the QB might throw it to him and you don't have a lot of control over that, even if what you're trying to do is throw long every play (gee, wonder why bhall is talking about throwing long every play).

So, you can open up a lot more plays that throw long by forcing the game to block with the HB even when it's not a blitz, which isn't the intent at all of holding a HB to block in real life. It just opens up another way to warp the game engine into doing what you want to do, even though the intent is for you not to have that level of control over the game engine.

Originally posted by NiborRis
What bhall is saying is that in the NFL, you can have your HB go out on a route and tell your QB "Never throw it to the HB. If you throw it to the HB, you're gonna spend all day Monday doing burpies and suicides." In GLB2, if your HB is on a route, the QB might throw it to him and you don't have a lot of control over that, even if what you're trying to do is throw long every play (gee, wonder why bhall is talking about throwing long every play).

So, you can open up a lot more plays that throw long by forcing the game to block with the HB even when it's not a blitz, which isn't the intent at all of holding a HB to block in real life. It just opens up another way to warp the game engine into doing what you want to do, even though the intent is for you not to have that level of control over the game engine.

i mean, that really shouldnt be a big problem if long passes are a lower % pass than short passes the way they are in real life
do qbs not have a harder time throwing farther?
do dbs not have more time to react to longer passes?
if neither of those things are true i need to drastically change my offense......

Originally posted by NiborRis
What bhall is saying is that in the NFL, you can have your HB go out on a route and tell your QB "Never throw it to the HB. If you throw it to the HB, you're gonna spend all day Monday doing burpies and suicides." In GLB2, if your HB is on a route, the QB might throw it to him and you don't have a lot of control over that, even if what you're trying to do is throw long every play (gee, wonder why bhall is talking about throwing long every play).

So, you can open up a lot more plays that throw long by forcing the game to block with the HB even when it's not a blitz, which isn't the intent at all of holding a HB to block in real life. It just opens up another way to warp the game engine into doing what you want to do, even though the intent is for you not to have that level of control over the game engine.

Gets it.

Originally posted by NiborRis
What bhall is saying is that in the NFL, you can have your HB go out on a route and tell your QB "Never throw it to the HB. If you throw it to the HB, you're gonna spend all day Monday doing burpies and suicides." In GLB2, if your HB is on a route, the QB might throw it to him and you don't have a lot of control over that, even if what you're trying to do is throw long every play (gee, wonder why bhall is talking about throwing long every play).

So, you can open up a lot more plays that throw long by forcing the game to block with the HB even when it's not a blitz, which isn't the intent at all of holding a HB to block in real life. It just opens up another way to warp the game engine into doing what you want to do, even though the intent is for you not to have that level of control over the game engine.

I understand that, but it also means that you've got someone who is trying to pass block who is very likely going to get destroyed on the pass-block, which may lead to more pressure and sacks.

I'm quite familiar with the tactic he is discussing. In GLB1 you have the option of holding players in to block, or letting them run their route, but to never include them on the checkdown. In GLB2, there are no checkdowns, so he's talking about using the other method. In GLB1, such a method would often lead to extra pressure and sacks, which is why many people would let the BTE, PHB, or BFB run the route and hope that the other team would cover them (if they weren't being thrown to) or leave them uncovered (leading to some of those RQB to BTE passes).

Just throw GLB1 out of the conversation all together because it has no place in this discussion. The pressure, how plays work, blocking, etc...all entirely different. It is a different game.

Originally posted by bhall43
Just throw GLB1 out of the conversation all together because it has no place in this discussion. The pressure, how plays work, blocking, etc...all entirely different. It is a different game.

thats exactly what i thought
it doesnt change the fact that some teams get way too much pressure without blitzing all over the place and vs those teams you should be able to hold in more blockers to effectively mitigate the pressure a little and give your qb more time

Originally posted by flynn
thats exactly what i thought
it doesnt change the fact that some teams get way too much pressure without blitzing all over the place and vs those teams you should be able to hold in more blockers to effectively mitigate the pressure a little and give your qb more time

Teams get that pressure because pass builds haven't even come close to being good yet. We were sacking the crap out of each other in the early leagues on the server and in vet league that was hardly ever a problem. I entirely get that you are looking for a way to hold back the pressure and I think making the hold back random would make the mechanic far less exploitive and interesting. In that because the QB may hold back a TE, a FB, or a HB, sometimes a combination depending on the blitz. It would just be as easy as me holding the HB all game and still having TE's and WR's to throw to all day long.

Originally posted by bhall43
Teams get that pressure because pass builds haven't even come close to being good yet. We were sacking the crap out of each other in the early leagues on the server and in vet league that was hardly ever a problem. I entirely get that you are looking for a way to hold back the pressure and I think making the hold back random would make the mechanic far less exploitive and interesting. In that because the QB may hold back a TE, a FB, or a HB, sometimes a combination depending on the blitz. It would just be as easy as me holding the HB all game and still having TE's and WR's to throw to all day long.

You know
If back routes weren't so ineffective that would be less of a problem
And if the completion % on longer passes was lower than on shorter passes that would also make that less of a problem
And if sits problem will eventually go away i suppose that's fine, I just didn't think that could be the case with linemen that were spending almost exclusively onpassblocking
It seemed like they must be able to stop rookie pass rushers

Originally posted by flynn
You know
If back routes weren't so ineffective that would be less of a problem
And if the completion % on longer passes was lower than on shorter passes that would also make that less of a problem
And if sits problem will eventually go away i suppose that's fine, I just didn't think that could be the case with linemen that were spending almost exclusively onpassblocking
It seemed like they must be able to stop rookie pass rushers

Back routes aren't ineffective once backs get enough speed and catching to make them work. But currently you have to have balance, speed, and catching skills just to make a wide open catch net good yardage. So it isn't the ineffective routes as much as it is the ineffective players running them.

The long pass vs. short pass debate is one that has been had for ages. While the short passes aren't being completed at a higher rate than the long passes it isn't that long passes are being completed at crazy %'s really either. GLB1 still struggles a bit with this element but the fake moves made shorter passing much more effective than it was. And now INT's have made any passing to WR's or even TE's a bit risky.

Even spending exclusively on pass blocking you are fairly average at this point. I don't have a pass block skill over 50 yet on my guys and if you do (and it isn't awareness) you are likely behind on the other 2. Plus there is the whole Balance, footwork, conditioning, quickness, a small dose of sprinting that comes into play too. And signature abilities too.

Originally posted by bhall43
Back routes aren't ineffective once backs get enough speed and catching to make them work. But currently you have to have balance, speed, and catching skills just to make a wide open catch net good yardage. So it isn't the ineffective routes as much as it is the ineffective players running them.

The long pass vs. short pass debate is one that has been had for ages. While the short passes aren't being completed at a higher rate than the long passes it isn't that long passes are being completed at crazy %'s really either. GLB1 still struggles a bit with this element but the fake moves made shorter passing much more effective than it was. And now INT's have made any passing to WR's or even TE's a bit risky.

Even spending exclusively on pass blocking you are fairly average at this point. I don't have a pass block skill over 50 yet on my guys and if you do (and it isn't awareness) you are likely behind on the other 2. Plus there is the whole Balance, footwork, conditioning, quickness, a small dose of sprinting that comes into play too. And signature abilities too.

But essentially, in glb2 currently, long passes are just more effective than short ones because they get completed as often?

Originally posted by flynn
But essentially, in glb2 currently, long passes are just more effective than short ones because they get completed as often?

Think about it like this. If you are completing 1/3rd of passes 15 yards or more in comparison to 2 out of 3 for 5 yards. The 15 yards just comes out better. People aren't completing passing for 10+ yards a pop ridiculously (yet) but they move the chains much better than throwing short passes. I mean SF has the top offense in the game but we also throw a ton, get sacked a ton, and punt a lot. But at the same time we are pretty effective.

Originally posted by bhall43
Think about it like this. If you are completing 1/3rd of passes 15 yards or more in comparison to 2 out of 3 for 5 yards. The 15 yards just comes out better. People aren't completing passing for 10+ yards a pop ridiculously (yet) but they move the chains much better than throwing short passes. I mean SF has the top offense in the game but we also throw a ton, get sacked a ton, and punt a lot. But at the same time we are pretty effective.

15 at 1/3 vs 5 at 2/3 is an argument that plenty of nfl coaches would be on either side of
if youre completing 1/3 passes for 15 yds each then every first down should result in another first down 19/27 times
alternatively 5 yds 2/3 times gets you another first down 24/27 times when you complete the first pass and 12/27 times when you dont which is actually 20/27 times
if your numbers are accurate you should sustain more drives with a short passing game
and really, you shouldnt be able to just throw one kind of pass and succeed because even though this isnt nfl football the defense should still learn to react to things better after they've already seen them once or twice, so if by the 3rd quarter you havent thrown a short pass to a wr or te, the dbs should be just covering the deeper part of the field and vice versa for short passes
you should have to do at least some of both to be successful even in dotball