Warrior General Games

Originally posted by dalpoas83
please do Im interested in what you have to say.

I cannot tell if you are being serious or condescending

Originally posted by valakar
Originally posted by dalpoas83

please do Im interested in what you have to say.

I cannot tell if you are being serious or condescending

I'd say condescending, but that's just me.

no. I was serious

Originally posted by dalpoas83
no. I was serious

Head over to the USA Pro Forum and check out Painmakers' very long description of what's happening and his suggestions of how to fix it. I don't have time right now to find the link, but I'll post it later.

ill do that, thanks

Originally posted by Btownjay
Originally posted by valakar

Originally posted by Btownjay


Originally posted by valakar



People are not seeing the bigger picture and what the problem truly is. Bort is looking into it I assure you that and it is being tested.

Trust Val... he does NOTHING else in this world other than GLB.

I do way more then you even realize outside of GLB and it is just not worth commenting on any further since you obviously enjoy trying to make statements to get a response.

I've got $50 that says you are fat. And probably single.

While you may win that bet, I'll bet $100 that you found a mate (male or female or inter-species, I'm not judging) that ignores the fact that you are an A-hole.

Originally posted by Btownjay
Originally posted by valakar

Originally posted by Btownjay


Originally posted by valakar



People are not seeing the bigger picture and what the problem truly is. Bort is looking into it I assure you that and it is being tested.

Trust Val... he does NOTHING else in this world other than GLB.

I do way more then you even realize outside of GLB and it is just not worth commenting on any further since you obviously enjoy trying to make statements to get a response.

I've got $50 that says you are fat. And probably single.

Just curious but what are you trying to say, that he is therefore a bad person and a loser? His priorities are his concerns not yours.

Originally posted by Shalubis
Originally posted by dalpoas83

no. I was serious

Head over to the USA Pro Forum and check out Painmakers' very long description of what's happening and his suggestions of how to fix it. I don't have time right now to find the link, but I'll post it later.

tried, didn't find it, and i'll probably die waiting for the link, hehe

i never found it either

Sorry it took so long to find the post. The whole thread is interesting to read (http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=2299161&page=6). Here's the post in full:

Painmaker Vegas Bronco, sorry to see you standing at the exit. I hope you'll find something that changes your mind before you walk away for good, because you've been an asset to the game. Can't say that I've got anything to point out right now that would do it, but I hope it comes along.

My thoughts on your concerns about the current sim and how it could improve:

The overall forum discussion hovers around "power backs" (a deceptive term) and/or pancakes, but I think the biggest problem is the ease with which blockers can push back defenders. It's most noticeable from the Strong I formation, where the C, RG, ROT, TE, and FB are all available to push back the NT, LDE, LOLB, and SS (assuming the defense blitzes the SS to get him there early) and the line gets about 2.5-3 yards on the push. Any HB with decent carrying, decent strength, Dive 4 Yardage, and/or Tenacious adds another 1-2 yards. That's 3.5-5 yards per play... pretty easy to get consistent first downs with that alone. If the offensive line push were to take longer, allowing defenders to attempt tackles prior to being pushed back that full distance, those runs might be limited to 1-3 yards -- making it much harder to sustain a drive on running alone. The HB I describe here would be my idea of a true "power" back, or alternatively you could call him a "short-yardage" back.

Same blocking problem in a different situation: now those blockers are trying to open up holes. Imagine a Singleback formation where the defense must take a huge risk to keep even 7 in the box, and usually only has 6. Those same blockers now work to open up holes between D linemen, leaving a path for an "explosive" back (speed and carrying, with a little bit of strength and some tackle-breaking SAs like Stiffarm and Power Through along with the VA Bruiser)to hit the LB. A little bit of luck on the part of the explosive back and he's broken through into the secondary. If he builds up enough steam by the time the safety gets there, he's got a good chance of steamrolling the poor DB and taking it all the way to the house.

Root cause of both problems: blockers pushing defenders around with too much ease. I think a strength advantage should still mean something, but it might be better to take a little more time for a 300-pound, 130-strength OL to push around a 300-pound, 90-strength DL. This would make for fewer automatic yards per rushing attempt by the short-yardage back and smaller holes for the explosive back to try to exploit (meaning fewer successful big-yardage carries by the explosive back).

Add to this the tendency of a defense to start overplaying a play once it's been run several times successfully would be interesting. Even better, running the same play from the same formation several times and then switching things up (say, run Cross Up after 7 straight Off Tackles from the Strong I) and penalizing the defense (maybe -5% to vision) for overcommitting would make the game more interesting in a way that doesn't completely nerf offense.

I'd love to see more energy effects on both sides of the ball, too. HBs should wear down over the course of the game (seen in lower speed), but so should each defender who attempts a tackle whether he makes it or not (seen in lower strength and tackling). This would allow true power backs (as I refer to them, short-yardage backs) still have a place but not run rampant for 80 yards in the fourth quarter, either.

Overall you see some balanced recommendations imo: nerf to the speed at which OL can push around DL (and vice versa), bias vision in the same way that run-focus or pass-focus individual tactics do for running the same play over and over, and show more stamina/energy effects on both sides of the ball. These changes should encourage more variety on offense because the "3 yards and a cloud of dust" formula won't be nearly automatic between evenly-matched teams.

Of course I'd also recommend that any such changes be challenged thoroughly on the test server for other vulnerabilities, and no fundamental change be implemented until the offseason. I also think the admins should privately test changes on a server which no GLB players have access to, which uses existing teams and their AIs from big games. They could run 10 instances of games between each of the GLB "Top 10" or "Top 50" or whatever, to see how a change might affect the highest-profile games that the most people pay attention to. Announce at the end of the season (ideally on Day 40 so it's in time for the recruiting season) what the changes will consist of, and hope that Season 9 offers more-entertaining games than the fairly predictable fare we're seeing in Season 8.

edit: My typing has really gone downhill since college...

from a quick glance looks dead on. good post

Its essentially the template for a lot of the changes coming in season 9. Though val seriously knows more about it than I do and may be able to elaborate in the near future - which I can't wait to hear.

and oh yeah... That cheap shot about Val. That stunk. Val's as quality a person as I've met in the game and deserves better.

Originally posted by Shalubis
and oh yeah... That cheap shot about Val. That stunk. Val's as quality a person as I've met in the game and deserves better.

No Doubt about that.