Warrior General Games

When pass technique increases pass quality to make a "an easier catch"

Does that also make the ball easier to catch for the CB?

I guess this is really a shot in the dark that deathblade will take pity on me and respond

I don't think it would (obviously not a BortBlade response).

My understanding of the pass roll is that the defender is up against the pass quality roll. The deflection/INT roll needs to beat the PQ roll; however, the D can affect the quality of the roll by getting a hand on it such that the ball still gets to the receiver, but that the quality of the pass has been reduced such that the receiver has to make a more difficult roll (as well as a catch in traffic roll).

I could be wrong about that, but that's always been the way I looked at the interaction. This is why so you might have 100 targets, 50 receptions allowed, and only 10 PDs. The PD stat is only is the defender was able to actually beat the Pass Quality roll completely; however, the effect of the PD roll might still result in an incompletion notwithstanding not getting the PD.

Again, not a BortBlade response, but they've been very tightlipped intentionally about the mechanics of the in game interactions. Also it isn't as much fun when you "know" something in the game as when you just "kind of have an idea".

This information really wouldn't change my build, I just wonder if it contributes to why it seems like we see substantially more ints as more players level up than when everyone was in Rookie or Sophomore. Obviously coverage changes play a part, just doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility.

As for mechanics of the game, I think a game like League of Legends or even Counterstrike would be pretty shitty if you had just "kind of an idea" of how much life you had, or ammo remaining, or damage that can be dealt, or whatever accessibility features that help you make more informed playing decisions. I've never seen a balance through obscurity game survive long periods of time. But that's a seperate topic in itself.

Originally posted by Laggo
This information really wouldn't change my build, I just wonder if it contributes to why it seems like we see substantially more ints as more players level up than when everyone was in Rookie or Sophomore. Obviously coverage changes play a part, just doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility.

As for mechanics of the game, I think a game like League of Legends or even Counterstrike would be pretty shitty if you had just "kind of an idea" of how much life you had, or ammo remaining, or damage that can be dealt, or whatever accessibility features that help you make more informed playing decisions. I've never seen a balance through obscurity game survive long periods of time. But that's a seperate topic in itself.

I just think of GLB1 and how the forums were a lot more interesting when we were trying to figure things out instead of knowing how everything worked (well, most of everything).

As far as why INTs go up, it is the same thing in GLB1 + a bit more. You can't build an INT build in the early game because there are a lot of things that you need to be able to do to get INTs. I mean, getting PDs is tough, so completely overcoming the PQ roll + making a catch roll is probably difficult. That's why most of the early level INTs aren't "get in front of the ball and start running with it" type INTs. Most are juggle/PD combination grabs.

Just think if it like the PD roll, but harder.

Also, from my understanding, there was a "rookie boost" in place. No idea what it covered, but if you go back to the S1 threads, I think Corn and Bort talk about it. Back when Bort posting was a thing. If the rookie level PQ roll is getting a boost (because let's face it, the QBs haven't exactly got their skills up enough at that stage to work with the high level sim), INTs would be even tougher.

Those are my thoughts on why the INT roll gets easier in the later levels.

I'd prefer to know how things work myself. Then we can theorycraft on why it's better to build your team one way or another instead of theorycrafting what the hell anything actually does.

You get the same types of discussions, just on different topics.

Originally posted by Galithor
I'd prefer to know how things work myself. Then we can theorycraft on why it's better to build your team one way or another instead of theorycrafting what the hell anything actually does.

You get the same types of discussions, just on different topics.

That is something they have already said they aren't going to do in this game. Which is good imo. Because the more one knew about GLB1, the less interesting things became.

Originally posted by Galithor
I'd prefer to know how things work myself. Then we can theorycraft on why it's better to build your team one way or another instead of theorycrafting what the hell anything actually does.

You get the same types of discussions, just on different topics.

If building wasn't already so simple, I would agree.

However, I'd rather see more options to explore and fewer clear cut choices... part of the problem with the metagame in GLB2 is that there are some things that flat out don't work well (like the D play calling, many of the plays themselves, many of the skills)... a little mystery is better.

Originally posted by bhall43
That is something they have already said they aren't going to do in this game. Which is good imo. Because the more one knew about GLB1, the less interesting things became.

In GLB1 there was only really one way to build a team or player though. That's not the case here. Between the splitting out of skills, tight roster limits, and Superstar distribution, there's going to be a whole bunch of ways to build your team in GLB2. Even amongst the pass heavy teams, how you spread around your Superstars and how many players to take at each position is debatable.

I get that the testers came to a consensus on this, I just think ya'll are wrong, and GLB1 is a bad example for why not to do it here.

In GLB1 higher pass quality meant it was HARDER to intercept it, so I'd put faith in a similar mechanic here in regards to pass technique.

Originally posted by Galithor
In GLB1 there was only really one way to build a team or player though. That's not the case here. Between the splitting out of skills, tight roster limits, and Superstar distribution, there's going to be a whole bunch of ways to build your team in GLB2. Even amongst the pass heavy teams, how you spread around your Superstars and how many players to take at each position is debatable.

I get that the testers came to a consensus on this, I just think ya'll are wrong, and GLB1 is a bad example for why not to do it here.

I think you vastly underestimate the quantity of different builds in glb1

Originally posted by bhall43
I think you vastly underestimate the quantity of different builds in glb1

maybe

I'm still pretty sure there's going to be a whole bunch more different builds here though.

There is gonna be a couple different SA combinations per position but the build variance beyond that isn't going to be nearly as wide as GLB1. The SA combinations work just like VA's pretty much in GLB1 in that they give you some small bit of specialty.

Originally posted by bhall43
That is something they have already said they aren't going to do in this game. Which is good imo. Because the more one knew about GLB1, the less interesting things became.

100% Agree sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I like the multiple different factors just want to make sure we keep infinite diversity with infinite different combinations and continual improvement to game play. (I would still like to see a significant improvement to league diversity and balance but thats another topic).

Especially in a game as simple as this. The faster people have knowledge of the best way to break the cap system the more ridiculous the mid levels become and you start just hoping for end game. With the only way (most likely it seems via watching some players anyways) to get above 100 in a cap being SA's, the build variance is only going to serve most of its purpose to take full advantage of an SA or 2.