Warrior General Games

Not enough player tactics tbh. My perfect builded DT doesn't even have a stomp face when player is down option.

Originally posted by Corndog
My only real disappointment is that I'm not really able to enjoy the game.

There's no joy in playing to win because I either don't win, or I do win and "who cares" because I'm an admin and have access to the code. What I liked about GLB Classic before I became an employee was making weird builds and trying to figure out the nuances of all the skills and SAs...but that doesn't have much enjoyment when I either wrote that chunk of code, or can do a "find all" and see all instances in the code where it is used in 5 seconds.

Cdog, hopefully you see this.

You NEED to play the game. You and Bort both NEED to.

You don't need to play to win but you do NEED to play to understand the issues.

Have private teams and compete just against each other on the Test Server or something.

The single biggest problem this game has is that experienced DCs have a HUGE advantage over inexperienced DCs. This is all due to the Defensive Tactics Matrix.

Being a DC takes time and an understanding of how to get the plays you want called. There's a huge advantage to the experienced player.

You have two possible solutions:

1. Fix the Tactics Matrix in the way I've proposed several times.

First, use Distance (Short, Med, Long)
Second, use Direction (Inside, Outside, Normal - no adjustment)
Third, check for Zone
Fourth, check for Blitz

Currently lumping in Direction with Distance causes huge problems in most instances. Those 5 inputs should NOT be on the same logic tree.

2. Add copies of existing plays, particularly the 'Man Pass/Run' plays, so that there are more choices for each Distance selection. 5-2, 4-3 and 3-4 don't have enough Medium and Long plays while Nickel, Dime and Quarter need better coverage over Short, Medium and Long. You don't need to create "new" plays. Just copy existing plays and give them Medium and Long tags.

This would create an explosion of Defensive play calling possibilities. Everyone talks about Offensive play spam but the reality is Defensive play spam is far, far worse.

Best option is to do BOTH of the above suggestions.

But what you NEED to do is play the game. Not to win necessarily, but to understand the issues better.

Go DC 100-200+ games against Bort in private match-ups against a variety of Offenses and you'll understand the Defensive Tactics Matix better. Try, just try to call appropriate Defensive plays on 3rd and 12. Try a mix of coverages and blitzes out of a variety of formations. It can't be done and get reasonable results. What works better is spamming one or two plays. I seriously doubt that's the game you wanted to create.

You really need to fix the inherent DC advantage of experienced players. Why?

Because new players will typically make a few players and put them on any team that will take them. If that team gets rolled by a bunch of competent DCs, those New Players don't get excited about playing the game. They don't stick around to become one of the experienced people. Meaning they don't buy FLEX.

Originally posted by Corndog
Mostly that a game based around waiting doesn't appeal to many people. Especially young people.

FYI, young people play a shit ton of Fantasy Football. They wait all week long for Sunday and only get 16 games a year.

Draft Kings is exploding based on 1-day Fantasy Football. Ok it's basically legalized gambling rather than game playing, but the customers have to wait until the games are actually played. They can't queue up some instant game.

GLB2 is 2 games every 3 days and if you have players on multiple teams, those numbers can explode. Watching a game takes anywhere from 15-30 minutes. You can easily spend several hours a day on GLB2.

I don't believe the issue is do to "waiting".

lol...I do agree some points are true but fixing the matrix metrics wont change that good DCs rule the game

Originally posted by buckets99
Not enough player tactics tbh. My perfect builded DT doesn't even have a stomp face when player is down option.

I defiantly think there should be more player tactics.

Originally posted by Xars
Cdog, hopefully you see this.

You NEED to play the game. You and Bort both NEED to.

You don't need to play to win but you do NEED to play to understand the issues.

But what you NEED to do is play the game. Not to win necessarily, but to understand the issues better.


sup

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/26

Originally posted by Xars
Cdog, hopefully you see this.

You NEED to play the game. You and Bort both NEED to.

You don't need to play to win but you do NEED to play to understand the issues.

Have private teams and compete just against each other on the Test Server or something.

The single biggest problem this game has is that experienced DCs have a HUGE advantage over inexperienced DCs. This is all due to the Defensive Tactics Matrix.

Being a DC takes time and an understanding of how to get the plays you want called. There's a huge advantage to the experienced player.

You have two possible solutions:

1. Fix the Tactics Matrix in the way I've proposed several times.

First, use Distance (Short, Med, Long)
Second, use Direction (Inside, Outside, Normal - no adjustment)
Third, check for Zone
Fourth, check for Blitz

Currently lumping in Direction with Distance causes huge problems in most instances. Those 5 inputs should NOT be on the same logic tree.

2. Add copies of existing plays, particularly the 'Man Pass/Run' plays, so that there are more choices for each Distance selection. 5-2, 4-3 and 3-4 don't have enough Medium and Long plays while Nickel, Dime and Quarter need better coverage over Short, Medium and Long. You don't need to create "new" plays. Just copy existing plays and give them Medium and Long tags.

This would create an explosion of Defensive play calling possibilities. Everyone talks about Offensive play spam but the reality is Defensive play spam is far, far worse.

Best option is to do BOTH of the above suggestions.

But what you NEED to do is play the game. Not to win necessarily, but to understand the issues better.

Go DC 100-200+ games against Bort in private match-ups against a variety of Offenses and you'll understand the Defensive Tactics Matix better. Try, just try to call appropriate Defensive plays on 3rd and 12. Try a mix of coverages and blitzes out of a variety of formations. It can't be done and get reasonable results. What works better is spamming one or two plays. I seriously doubt that's the game you wanted to create.

You really need to fix the inherent DC advantage of experienced players. Why?

Because new players will typically make a few players and put them on any team that will take them. If that team gets rolled by a bunch of competent DCs, those New Players don't get excited about playing the game. They don't stick around to become one of the experienced people. Meaning they don't buy FLEX.





xars whole thing makes sense. and really guys wouldnt mind havind bort or cdog on their roster. im not going to say you are cheating the game becuase you have codes. hell see if you can make a unique build work on this game. play around with things.

what xars is trying to say is all you have to see when something is wrong is the user base complaining mostly about it. and some of these guys are big whiners. but if you are playing on teams then you could be having our fun and seeing how you can make it even better for everyone else too.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
sup

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/26



I know you do.

So, how much code do you write for GLB2?

Originally posted by Xars
I know you do.

So, how much code do you write for GLB2?



so i have to write code to talk to the coders about the game/issues/changes? you silly.

Of course not. Was just asking.

DD, since you do talk to them, what's your thoughts on the Defensive Tactics Matrix?

Any chance you agree with my recommendations?

Originally posted by Xars
Of course not. Was just asking.

DD, since you do talk to them, what's your thoughts on the Defensive Tactics Matrix?

Any chance you agree with my recommendations?

We've talked about tweaking the DC tactics page, so it's not a NGTH thing. Not sure there is only 2 solutions.

Currently the distance is based on the play. Blitzes are supposed to bring pressure and so most blitzes are "Short", etc. Making each play have short/medium/long would mean that short/medium/long doesn't really mean anything.

But yeah, we aren't opposed to changing the Defensive tactics, will talk more about with Bort/Cdog.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
We've talked about tweaking the DC tactics page, so it's not a NGTH thing. Not sure there is only 2 solutions.

Currently the distance is based on the play. Blitzes are supposed to bring pressure and so most blitzes are "Short", etc. Making each play have short/medium/long would mean that short/medium/long doesn't really mean anything.

But yeah, we aren't opposed to changing the Defensive tactics, will talk more about with Bort/Cdog.

Currently the only meaning that short/medium/long holds is in how you have to write your tactics to get them to fire. No one cares what the play tag is concerning how they want to use the play, meaning we are running short tagged plays in medium and long situations but in order to get those to fire correctly we are limited to 1 short non blitz and 1 short blitz in each package. sSome of the medium tagged plays are viable, but the majority of the long tagged plays are junk so why would we use them at all(with the exception of a few) The point is by tagging the plays the way they are you are preventing variety by forcing DCs to choose 1 short coverage play and 1 short blitz and maybe add a medium play and/or middle overload on low priority. Your creating defensive spam by standing firm on the current tags, the coordinators are just making the best of the broken tactics matrix they are stuck with.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
We've talked about tweaking the DC tactics page, so it's not a NGTH thing. Not sure there is only 2 solutions.

Currently the distance is based on the play. Blitzes are supposed to bring pressure and so most blitzes are "Short", etc. Making each play have short/medium/long would mean that short/medium/long doesn't really mean anything.

But yeah, we aren't opposed to changing the Defensive tactics, will talk more about with Bort/Cdog.

I actually think the defensive tactics page can stay the same. The change needs to be in the defensive playbook/play tags.

The way the plays are currently tagged isn't always matching the way they are actually being used. People are using Short Pass Blitzes for Outside Run defense, Short Pass defense to stop long passes, long pass defense to stop screens, etc.

Allow us to actually tag the plays the way we intend on using them. This will allow us to easily sync up our formations and make the tactics page much easier to fill out. The way the plays are currently tagged should be the default setting. This will allow those who like it the way it is just to keep doing what they are doing. A drop down box should be included on each play that allows us to change the tag to Short Pass, Medium Pass, Long Pass, Inside Run, or Outside Run. Man, Zone, Blitz tags should remain unchanged.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Rob.
I actually think the defensive tactics page can stay the same. The change needs to be in the defensive playbook/play tags.

The way the plays are currently tagged isn't always matching the way they are actually being used. People are using Short Pass Blitzes for Outside Run defense, Short Pass defense to stop long passes, long pass defense to stop screens, etc.

Allow us to actually tag the plays the way we intend on using them. This will allow us to easily sync up our formations and make the tactics page much easier to fill out. The way the plays are currently tagged should be the default setting. This will allow those who like it the way it is just to keep doing what they are doing. A drop down box should be included on each play that allows us to change the tag to Short Pass, Medium Pass, Long Pass, Inside Run, or Outside Run. Man, Zone, Blitz tags should remain unchanged.

Thoughts?

I agree with what rob. says here, it would help a lot and make things easier for us to set up our playbooks/tactics how we would like.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
We've talked about tweaking the DC tactics page, so it's not a NGTH thing. Not sure there is only 2 solutions.

Currently the distance is based on the play. Blitzes are supposed to bring pressure and so most blitzes are "Short", etc. Making each play have short/medium/long would mean that short/medium/long doesn't really mean anything.

But yeah, we aren't opposed to changing the Defensive tactics, will talk more about with Bort/Cdog.

I'm sorry but as the other posts above have mentioned this is improper thinking. We need pressure plays that are tagged based on Down and Distance of the SITUATION, not the number of yards we want to give up. I can not stress enough that your response (and potentially that of Bort/Cdog) is misguided.

Rob's idea has merit but in my view, that's a coding challenge. Simply copying existing plays so that they can be called in multiple Distance situations is an easy workaround of the drop-down idea.

This exposes and explains a huge glaring problem: the GLB2 Staff really don't understand the problem and thus can't see the merit in the proposed fixes.

Sorry DD. I appreciate your input but unfortunately your viewpoint needs correction.